The Rhetoric of Fiction
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 08:10, 21 August 2007 WikiSysop (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| + | ''[[The Rhetoric of Fiction]]'' is a literary theory treatise by [[Wayne C. Booth]] first published in [[1961]]. Amongst other things, he coined the concept of the [[unreliable narrator]]. | ||
| + | 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). | ||
| - | His 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 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. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | A later work is ''[[Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent]]'', in which he addresses the question of what circumstances should cause one to change one's mind, discussing what happens in situations where two diametrically opposed systems of belief are in argument. His central example is an incident at the University of Chicago. In it, students and administration were engaged in fierce debate that eventually degenerated into each side simply reprinting the other side's arguments without comment, believing that the opposing side was so self-evidently absurd that to state its propositions was to refute them. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Another book of note is 1974's ''[[The Rhetoric of Irony]]'', in which Booth examines the long tradition of irony and its use in literature. It is probably his second most popular work after ''[[The Rhetoric of Fiction]]''. A later work is ''The Company we Keep: An Ethics of Fiction,'' in which he returns to the topic of rhetorical effects in fiction, and "argues for the relocation of ethics to the center of our engagement with literature" (cover note, ''The Company we Keep''). | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | In common with most [[Chicago school (literary criticism)|Chicago school]] critics, Booth has been attacked for making overly broad claims about the nature of [[human race|humanity]] and for marginalizing cultures in the process.<sup>[''citation needed'']</sup> | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | The University of Chicago Wayne C. Booth Graduate Student Prize for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching was established in 1991 in honor of Booth. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ==Sources Cited== | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ''The Rhetoric of Fiction.'' Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. | + | |
| - | *Rhetoric of Fiction (1961) | + | |
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Current revision
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
The Rhetoric of Fiction is a literary theory treatise by Wayne C. Booth first published in 1961. Amongst other things, he coined the concept of the unreliable narrator.
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.
