启蒙运动后期的讽刺小说与小说实践。小说史研究的方法论建议

IF 0.6 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM Journal of Literary Theory Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1515/jlt-2020-2003
S. Descher
{"title":"启蒙运动后期的讽刺小说与小说实践。小说史研究的方法论建议","authors":"S. Descher","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2020-2003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper examines German satirical novels of the late Enlightenment period, published roughly between 1760 and 1790, under the following question: Is there any evidence that the historical practice of fiction (concerning this time and these texts) deviates from the modern practice of fiction as described by institutional accounts of fictionality? First, it is explained what, in this essay, is meant by the ›modern practice of fiction‹. Four ›core rules‹ are identified that, according to institutional accounts of fictionality, characterize the practice of reading works of fiction. These core rules are: You should not conclude that what is expressed by fictional utterances is actually true! You should not conclude that the author believes that what is expressed by his fictional utterances is actually true! You should imagine what is expressed by fictional utterances (make-believe, pretence)! You should (or at least can) make your imaginations the object of higher-level attitudes (for example you can evaluate, emotionally respond to, interpret them etc.)! Then, using the example of German satirical novels of the late Enlightenment, seven features of fictional texts are discussed that may provide clues about the historical practice of fiction and that could give an indication of whether the core rules actually do apply. These features are: assurances of truthfulness by the author or fictional authors/editors; direct thematization of the fictional/factual-text-distinction; fictional reading scenarios; comments by fictional narrators and/or characters on the practice of reading; statements of the actual author in the fictional text; ›that cannot be true‹-passages (intentional mistakes, anachronisms, various ways of breaking the reader’s expectations, etc.); various kinds of reference to the actual world (for example satirical allusions to actual persons or states of affairs). It will be argued that, for the corpus of texts under consideration, there is no convincing evidence that the historical practices of reading works of fiction deviates in any significant way from the core rules of the modern practice of fiction. However, the main aim of this paper is not to provide an exhaustive historical case study. First, the investigation is limited to the exemplary discussion of some (although significant) texts and text passages, so the results can only be considered preliminary. Second, while the satirical novel of the late Enlightenment indeed is a particularly interesting and revealing genre for the study of the historical practice of fiction (arguments are given in section 3), the main purpose of this essay is to make a methodological proposal. A general procedure is provided for finding out whether the historical practice of fiction differs from our modern practice – a procedure that can be applied to texts of other times and genres as well.","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jlt-2020-2003","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Satirical Novels of the Late Enlightenment and the Practice of Fiction. A Methodological Proposal for Investigations Into the History of Fiction\",\"authors\":\"S. Descher\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jlt-2020-2003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The paper examines German satirical novels of the late Enlightenment period, published roughly between 1760 and 1790, under the following question: Is there any evidence that the historical practice of fiction (concerning this time and these texts) deviates from the modern practice of fiction as described by institutional accounts of fictionality? First, it is explained what, in this essay, is meant by the ›modern practice of fiction‹. Four ›core rules‹ are identified that, according to institutional accounts of fictionality, characterize the practice of reading works of fiction. These core rules are: You should not conclude that what is expressed by fictional utterances is actually true! You should not conclude that the author believes that what is expressed by his fictional utterances is actually true! You should imagine what is expressed by fictional utterances (make-believe, pretence)! You should (or at least can) make your imaginations the object of higher-level attitudes (for example you can evaluate, emotionally respond to, interpret them etc.)! Then, using the example of German satirical novels of the late Enlightenment, seven features of fictional texts are discussed that may provide clues about the historical practice of fiction and that could give an indication of whether the core rules actually do apply. These features are: assurances of truthfulness by the author or fictional authors/editors; direct thematization of the fictional/factual-text-distinction; fictional reading scenarios; comments by fictional narrators and/or characters on the practice of reading; statements of the actual author in the fictional text; ›that cannot be true‹-passages (intentional mistakes, anachronisms, various ways of breaking the reader’s expectations, etc.); various kinds of reference to the actual world (for example satirical allusions to actual persons or states of affairs). It will be argued that, for the corpus of texts under consideration, there is no convincing evidence that the historical practices of reading works of fiction deviates in any significant way from the core rules of the modern practice of fiction. However, the main aim of this paper is not to provide an exhaustive historical case study. First, the investigation is limited to the exemplary discussion of some (although significant) texts and text passages, so the results can only be considered preliminary. Second, while the satirical novel of the late Enlightenment indeed is a particularly interesting and revealing genre for the study of the historical practice of fiction (arguments are given in section 3), the main purpose of this essay is to make a methodological proposal. A general procedure is provided for finding out whether the historical practice of fiction differs from our modern practice – a procedure that can be applied to texts of other times and genres as well.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42872,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Literary Theory\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jlt-2020-2003\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Literary Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2020-2003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Literary Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2020-2003","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: 0

摘要

摘要:本文考察了大约在1760年至1790年间出版的启蒙运动后期的德国讽刺小说,并提出了以下问题:是否有证据表明小说的历史实践(关于这个时代和这些文本)偏离了虚构性的制度描述所描述的现代小说实践?首先,本文解释了“小说的现代实践”的含义。根据虚构性的机构描述,确定了四个核心规则,这些规则表征了阅读小说作品的实践。这些核心规则是:你不应该断定虚构的话语所表达的实际上是真实的!你不应该断定作者相信他虚构的话语所表达的东西实际上是真实的!你应该想象一下虚构的话语所表达的意思(假装,假装)!你应该(或者至少可以)让你的想象成为更高层次态度的对象(例如,你可以评估、情绪化地回应、解释它们等等)!然后,以德国启蒙运动晚期的讽刺小说为例,讨论了虚构文本的七个特征,这些特征可能为小说的历史实践提供线索,并可能表明核心规则是否确实适用。这些特征是:作者或虚构作者/编辑对真实性的保证;小说/事实文本区分的直接主题化虚构的阅读场景;虚构的叙述者和/或人物对阅读实践的评论;虚构文本中实际作者的陈述;不可能真实的段落(故意的错误,时代错误,各种方式打破读者的期望,等等);对现实世界的各种暗示(例如对现实人物或事件的讽刺性暗示)。本文认为,就本文所考虑的文本语料库而言,没有令人信服的证据表明,历史上阅读小说作品的做法与现代小说实践的核心规则有任何重大偏离。然而,本文的主要目的不是提供一个详尽的历史案例研究。首先,调查仅限于一些(虽然重要)文本和文本段落的示范性讨论,因此结果只能被认为是初步的。其次,虽然启蒙运动后期的讽刺小说确实是研究小说历史实践的一种特别有趣和具有启发性的类型(论点在第3节中给出),但本文的主要目的是提出一种方法论建议。本文提供了一种通用的程序,以找出小说的历史实践与我们的现代实践是否不同,这一程序也可以应用于其他时代和体裁的文本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Satirical Novels of the Late Enlightenment and the Practice of Fiction. A Methodological Proposal for Investigations Into the History of Fiction
Abstract The paper examines German satirical novels of the late Enlightenment period, published roughly between 1760 and 1790, under the following question: Is there any evidence that the historical practice of fiction (concerning this time and these texts) deviates from the modern practice of fiction as described by institutional accounts of fictionality? First, it is explained what, in this essay, is meant by the ›modern practice of fiction‹. Four ›core rules‹ are identified that, according to institutional accounts of fictionality, characterize the practice of reading works of fiction. These core rules are: You should not conclude that what is expressed by fictional utterances is actually true! You should not conclude that the author believes that what is expressed by his fictional utterances is actually true! You should imagine what is expressed by fictional utterances (make-believe, pretence)! You should (or at least can) make your imaginations the object of higher-level attitudes (for example you can evaluate, emotionally respond to, interpret them etc.)! Then, using the example of German satirical novels of the late Enlightenment, seven features of fictional texts are discussed that may provide clues about the historical practice of fiction and that could give an indication of whether the core rules actually do apply. These features are: assurances of truthfulness by the author or fictional authors/editors; direct thematization of the fictional/factual-text-distinction; fictional reading scenarios; comments by fictional narrators and/or characters on the practice of reading; statements of the actual author in the fictional text; ›that cannot be true‹-passages (intentional mistakes, anachronisms, various ways of breaking the reader’s expectations, etc.); various kinds of reference to the actual world (for example satirical allusions to actual persons or states of affairs). It will be argued that, for the corpus of texts under consideration, there is no convincing evidence that the historical practices of reading works of fiction deviates in any significant way from the core rules of the modern practice of fiction. However, the main aim of this paper is not to provide an exhaustive historical case study. First, the investigation is limited to the exemplary discussion of some (although significant) texts and text passages, so the results can only be considered preliminary. Second, while the satirical novel of the late Enlightenment indeed is a particularly interesting and revealing genre for the study of the historical practice of fiction (arguments are given in section 3), the main purpose of this essay is to make a methodological proposal. A general procedure is provided for finding out whether the historical practice of fiction differs from our modern practice – a procedure that can be applied to texts of other times and genres as well.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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