Sunday, February 12, 2012
Fictional Genesis
Walton declares in his essay that fiction need not be an artifact of human creation. Fiction is merely any object which serves as a prop in a game of make believe. He gives an example of cracks in a cave wall that miraculously spell of the beginning of a story as fiction. Indeed, this particular hypothetical would fit his definition, as it might serve as a prop to someone who decides to use it in a game of make believe. What if the inscription on the rock had spelled out something corresponding to reality? For instance, had the rocks spelled out "Istanbul is the capital of Turkey...", would we consider it a naturally occurring work of non-fiction? The limits of both Walton's and my ridiculous hypothetical aside, it is an important point to consider. While Walton would like to maintain that anything can serve as a prop for make-believe and thus be rendered fiction, it is slightly more difficult to conceive of a work being non-fiction that was naturally occurring as well.
Balance of Fiction
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?
Is Searle's definition of fiction adequate enough to effectively delineate the category?
Q&A Question 2
Is the category of fiction as encompassing as Walton claims it to be?
Walton claims that works of fiction are representations whose function is to serve as props in games of make believe. Walton goes on to add that any work that serves the aforementioned function, however minor or peripheral it may be, is a work of fiction. This is an important distinction, as it leads to more important questions he does not address. If I were to write a philosophical treatise (perhaps about fiction), and I happen to use a hypothetical example for the purposes of my argument, is my work fiction or non-fiction? Under Searle's definition, it would seem that I had constructed a non-fictional work with some fictional aspects. But Walton's definition seems to suggest a different answer. By using that hypothetical situation, I have created a prop for a "game of make believe," where the reader must imagine my hypothetical situation which does not correspond to reality. Perhaps this is just an oversight on Walton's part, but I would not feel comfortable classifying every work as fiction that may contain or employ some fictional elements.
Walton claims that works of fiction are representations whose function is to serve as props in games of make believe. Walton goes on to add that any work that serves the aforementioned function, however minor or peripheral it may be, is a work of fiction. This is an important distinction, as it leads to more important questions he does not address. If I were to write a philosophical treatise (perhaps about fiction), and I happen to use a hypothetical example for the purposes of my argument, is my work fiction or non-fiction? Under Searle's definition, it would seem that I had constructed a non-fictional work with some fictional aspects. But Walton's definition seems to suggest a different answer. By using that hypothetical situation, I have created a prop for a "game of make believe," where the reader must imagine my hypothetical situation which does not correspond to reality. Perhaps this is just an oversight on Walton's part, but I would not feel comfortable classifying every work as fiction that may contain or employ some fictional elements.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Q&A Question 1
Is fiction necessarily comprised of pretend assertions as claimed by Searle?
In his attempt to break down the art of fiction into a series of illocutionary acts, Searle claims that fiction is comprised of a series of pretend assertions. Searle's defense of this claim seems to be strong; that a work of fiction must correspond to the pretend world in the same way that a series of assertions must correspond to reality. For the majority of fictional works, this seems to be the case. But what happens if a work is not comprised of pretend assertions, as part or all of the story does not adhere to the four criteria of an assertion? For instance, in the novel The Catcher in the Rye, the story is narrated by the main character, who at first appears to be making assertions. As the reader follows the story, however, the "truth" behind much of Holden Caulfield's narration comes into question. By the end of the story, it's not even apparent that Holden himself believes that much of what he is saying is true.
Would the Catcher in the Rye be eliminated from fiction under Searle's definition?
In his attempt to break down the art of fiction into a series of illocutionary acts, Searle claims that fiction is comprised of a series of pretend assertions. Searle's defense of this claim seems to be strong; that a work of fiction must correspond to the pretend world in the same way that a series of assertions must correspond to reality. For the majority of fictional works, this seems to be the case. But what happens if a work is not comprised of pretend assertions, as part or all of the story does not adhere to the four criteria of an assertion? For instance, in the novel The Catcher in the Rye, the story is narrated by the main character, who at first appears to be making assertions. As the reader follows the story, however, the "truth" behind much of Holden Caulfield's narration comes into question. By the end of the story, it's not even apparent that Holden himself believes that much of what he is saying is true.
Would the Catcher in the Rye be eliminated from fiction under Searle's definition?
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Necessary and Sufficient
What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a work to be considered literature?
While some of us contend that literature can and should be defined classically, the burden subsequently falls upon us to demonstrate how. Jacob has already attempted this definition, and I believe it is a defensible position. Since I agree with Jacob's definition of art, and since I consider literature to be an art form, I would begin my definition of literature in much the same manner. Art is the creation of an object through the use of an aesthetic medium with the intent to convey and embody a concept or emotion. Therefore, I agree with the beginning of Jacob's definition, that literature is an object created through the use of language with the intent to convey and embody a concept and emotion. The only area of contention that I thought I might have was with the qualification that literature must be a narrative. I thought that something important might be excluded with that stipulation, and I wondered why we needed to include it at all.
Then two thoughts occurred to me. The first was that without the inclusion of narrative as a descriptive qualifier, the definition of literature might then be used to include a work such as "Spazio." Also, depending on how we define narrative in this case, we may not have a problem at all. I would like to posit that narrative in this definition should mean a story or account of events; which is broad enough to include the works we should include and still discriminates against works like Spazio.
While some of us contend that literature can and should be defined classically, the burden subsequently falls upon us to demonstrate how. Jacob has already attempted this definition, and I believe it is a defensible position. Since I agree with Jacob's definition of art, and since I consider literature to be an art form, I would begin my definition of literature in much the same manner. Art is the creation of an object through the use of an aesthetic medium with the intent to convey and embody a concept or emotion. Therefore, I agree with the beginning of Jacob's definition, that literature is an object created through the use of language with the intent to convey and embody a concept and emotion. The only area of contention that I thought I might have was with the qualification that literature must be a narrative. I thought that something important might be excluded with that stipulation, and I wondered why we needed to include it at all.
Then two thoughts occurred to me. The first was that without the inclusion of narrative as a descriptive qualifier, the definition of literature might then be used to include a work such as "Spazio." Also, depending on how we define narrative in this case, we may not have a problem at all. I would like to posit that narrative in this definition should mean a story or account of events; which is broad enough to include the works we should include and still discriminates against works like Spazio.
Coherent Qualification
In one of his more recent posts, Jacob posited a definition of literature. While I am a fan of this definition (mostly because it corresponds nicely to his definition of art, which I am also a fan of for personal reasons), the fourth part is the only section that I question. Jacob says that in order for a work to be considered literature, it must have a "coherent narrative." Although I'm inclined to agree that a work of literature must possess a narrative, I am dubious of the merit in including the qualification that the narrative be "coherent." I think that the inclusion of coherent in the definition may bring a host of problems in determining works to be literature. For instance, is Ulysses by Joyce literature? While I think that it clearly has a narrative, some may argue against the coherency of it. But if Ulysses satisfies the criterion, than what work would contain a narrative not coherent enough to include in the category of literature? I think that we must first define narrative and then determine whether or not the inclusion (and definition) of coherent becomes necessary.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Closed Case
In class on Monday, we discussed the difference between open and closed definitions, and which category literature may fall under. In the first essay of our assigned reading, Hirsch argues that literature must have an open definition because any closed definition of the term would not include all of the works that should be included and exclude the opposite. He claims that there is too much gray area to determine definitely which works are literature; he gives examples of hypothetical literary experts who disagree on different works to prove his point.
In class, I asked whether or not an object, which was classically defined using the necessary and sufficient criteria, could also have qualities beyond that criteria and still fit inside the definition or category. If we agree that this is true, than I think that a closed definition of literature becomes a much more viable possibility. The difficulty is reduced to establishing the basic criteria for literature, from which we can include works that may vary from each other in many different ways. While this definition may be difficult to formulate, and nigh impossible to achieve universal popularity, I believe that such an endeavor is necessary for a complete understanding of, and discourse involving, literature.
Is defining literature necessary for our class to examine the category?
In class, I asked whether or not an object, which was classically defined using the necessary and sufficient criteria, could also have qualities beyond that criteria and still fit inside the definition or category. If we agree that this is true, than I think that a closed definition of literature becomes a much more viable possibility. The difficulty is reduced to establishing the basic criteria for literature, from which we can include works that may vary from each other in many different ways. While this definition may be difficult to formulate, and nigh impossible to achieve universal popularity, I believe that such an endeavor is necessary for a complete understanding of, and discourse involving, literature.
Is defining literature necessary for our class to examine the category?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)