The Rhetoric of Fiction
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 08:14, 21 August 2007 WikiSysop (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 09:44, 3 March 2008 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| - | [[Wayne C. Booth]]'s major work was ''[[The Rhetoric of Fiction]]''. In this book, Booth argues that all [[narrative]] is a form of [[rhetoric]], that is, an argument on the part of author in defense of his or her "various commitments, secret or overt [that] determine our response to the work" (''The Rhetoric of Fiction'' 71). The majority of these commitments are based on morals and morality, Booth argues. The speaker in narrative is the author or, more specifically, the [[implied author]], which Booth also calls an author's "second self" who "chooses, consciously or unconsciously, what we read; we infer him as an ideal, literary, created version of the real man; he is the sum of his own choices" (''The Rhetoric of Fiction'' 74-75) (the term "second self" was actually created by Kathleen Tillotson). | + | ''[[The Rhetoric of Fiction]]'' is a literary theory treatise by [[Wayne C. Booth]]. In this book, Booth argues that all [[narrative]] is a form of [[rhetoric]], that is, an argument on the part of author in defense of his or her "various commitments, secret or overt [that] determine our response to the work" (''The Rhetoric of Fiction'' 71). The majority of these commitments are based on morals and morality, Booth argues. The speaker in narrative is the author or, more specifically, the [[implied author]], which Booth also calls an author's "second self" who "chooses, consciously or unconsciously, what we read; we infer him as an ideal, literary, created version of the real man; he is the sum of his own choices" (''The Rhetoric of Fiction'' 74-75) (the term "second self" was actually created by Kathleen Tillotson). |
| The implied author is a compromise between old-fashioned biographical criticism, the [[New Criticism|new critics]] who argued that one can only talk about what the text says, and modern criticism that argued for the "eradication" of authorial presence. Booth argued that it is impossible to talk about a text without talking about an author, because the existence of the text implies the existence of an author. Booth's argument was, particularly, a response to modern critics who, starting from Henry James, emphasized the difference between "showing" and "telling" in fiction, always placing a premium on the importance of "showing." Such a distinction is deeply flawed according to Booth, for authors routinely both show and tell, deciding which technique to use based on their aesthetic decisions about which way to convey their "commitments." Authors often make their own contributions in their works, and they also include those of narrators, whether reliable, unreliable, partial or impartial. Booth notes the important differences among these contributors, however, pointing out that the author is distinct from the [[narrator]] of the text. He uses the examples of stories with an [[unreliable narrator]] to prove this point, observing that, in these stories, the whole point of the story is lost if one confuses narrator and author. | The implied author is a compromise between old-fashioned biographical criticism, the [[New Criticism|new critics]] who argued that one can only talk about what the text says, and modern criticism that argued for the "eradication" of authorial presence. Booth argued that it is impossible to talk about a text without talking about an author, because the existence of the text implies the existence of an author. Booth's argument was, particularly, a response to modern critics who, starting from Henry James, emphasized the difference between "showing" and "telling" in fiction, always placing a premium on the importance of "showing." Such a distinction is deeply flawed according to Booth, for authors routinely both show and tell, deciding which technique to use based on their aesthetic decisions about which way to convey their "commitments." Authors often make their own contributions in their works, and they also include those of narrators, whether reliable, unreliable, partial or impartial. Booth notes the important differences among these contributors, however, pointing out that the author is distinct from the [[narrator]] of the text. He uses the examples of stories with an [[unreliable narrator]] to prove this point, observing that, in these stories, the whole point of the story is lost if one confuses narrator and author. | ||
Revision as of 09:44, 3 March 2008
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
The Rhetoric of Fiction is a literary theory treatise by Wayne C. Booth. In this book, Booth argues that all narrative is a form of rhetoric, that is, an argument on the part of author in defense of his or her "various commitments, secret or overt [that] determine our response to the work" (The Rhetoric of Fiction 71). The majority of these commitments are based on morals and morality, Booth argues. The speaker in narrative is the author or, more specifically, the implied author, which Booth also calls an author's "second self" who "chooses, consciously or unconsciously, what we read; we infer him as an ideal, literary, created version of the real man; he is the sum of his own choices" (The Rhetoric of Fiction 74-75) (the term "second self" was actually created by Kathleen Tillotson).
The implied author is a compromise between old-fashioned biographical criticism, the new critics who argued that one can only talk about what the text says, and modern criticism that argued for the "eradication" of authorial presence. Booth argued that it is impossible to talk about a text without talking about an author, because the existence of the text implies the existence of an author. Booth's argument was, particularly, a response to modern critics who, starting from Henry James, emphasized the difference between "showing" and "telling" in fiction, always placing a premium on the importance of "showing." Such a distinction is deeply flawed according to Booth, for authors routinely both show and tell, deciding which technique to use based on their aesthetic decisions about which way to convey their "commitments." Authors often make their own contributions in their works, and they also include those of narrators, whether reliable, unreliable, partial or impartial. Booth notes the important differences among these contributors, however, pointing out that the author is distinct from the narrator of the text. He uses the examples of stories with an unreliable narrator to prove this point, observing that, in these stories, the whole point of the story is lost if one confuses narrator and author.
Sources Cited
The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
- Rhetoric of Fiction (1961)
