In his essay, Searle acknowledges that works of fiction may contain non-fictional elements. Although he does not address it, it would seem to follow that the converse of this claim would be true as well; that works of non-fiction may contain fictional elements (such as metaphors or hypothetical scenarios.) If we take these premises to be true, then it is reasonable to assume that a work of fiction is comprised of mostly pretend assertions while a work of non-fiction is comprised of mostly real assertions. In the unlikely event that a work was produced with equal parts assertion and pretend assertion, what would the work be classified as? For example, Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear is half fictional thriller and half argumentative assertions against Global Warming. All specific measurements of the work aside, it provides at least a basis for consideration of a work that might be evenly divided between fictional and non-fictional discourse.
Is Searle's definition of fiction adequate enough to effectively delineate the category?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment