|
|
| (13 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Provisorische uralte Infos über mich:
| + | Passed M.A. exam 2008. |
| − | http://www.grimoires.de/inhalt.php?art=team&nr=1
| + | Title of Magisterarbeit: Jasper Fforde's 'Thursday Next' (2001-2007). Intertextuality, Metafiction, Postmodernism |
| | | | |
| − | =Proposal Magisterarbeit=
| + | Currently researching about King Arthur in Early Modern England (1473-1800) and seeking employment as PhD student. (Researching on that very topic, obviously). |
| | | | |
| − | <i>still in work</i>
| + | ===Dissertation Exposee - Introduction=== |
| | | | |
| − | ==Metafiction and Intertextuality in Jasper Fforde’s “First Among Sequels” Series== | + | ==King Arthur 1473-1800: Between History and Fiction== |
| | | | |
| − | In a 2005 article, Erica Hateley (University of Melbourne) published an article on The Eyre Afair, the first novel of the Thursday Next series, and its relation to Jane Eyre. In this article, she mainly explores the relation of the two novels with special regard to the mimicking instances of Fforde’s novel going as far as to identify the protagonist as a recurring Jane, which is on some levels certainly true. Since that article, 4 more books have been published and thus furthered the “Next Universe”. While being “popular literature” in the realm of the Fantastic [sic], there are more points of interest then were explored by Hateley, who dealt exclusively with the Jane Eyre/The Eyre Affair relation. Some of her points can be taken up for an analysis of the later novels.
| + | Even in the present day, King Arthur is part of popular myth building as well as scientific exploration, especially in connection with the European middle ages in which the Matière de Bretagne got widespread attention. There is no seamless connection from the high middle ages, the apex of the Arthurian Epic, to this day. The middle ages were afterwards shunned and had to be rediscovered by the Romantic Movement; Arthurian literature experiences a revival of its own at about 1800. This has been object of extensive research as has been the medieval treatment of Arthur. |
| | + | The period of transfer between 1473 (the beginning of print) and 1800 (the rediscovery of the Middle Ages), on the other hand, has been hardly researched. The Arthurian matter was not lost. It can be found in: |
| | | | |
| − | This Magisterarbeit aims to focus mainly on the fifth book, illustrating the main points in which the series work with the instances occurring there. At occasions some comparison with earlier depictions will probably become necessary, notably when utterances complement each other. The choice of the fifth book as main object has several reasons: First, it gives a definite focus on one part of the series; Second, the title itself is not intertextual (as had been The Eyre Affair and Something Rotten) but directly points to metatextuality. Third, it is the first book after a “core” of four books that ended at least one major plot (while others continue). Lastly, apart from The Well of Lost Plots (III), First Among Sequels is the book that focuses most on the interior of the BookWorld and within it on the construction of books and the book as medium in our contemporary world. It seems also unnecessary to say that a couple of issues that arose in previous stories are reiterated and actualised.
| + | - “Histories” and “Chronicles” |
| | + | - Works of the humanities |
| | + | - Encyclopaedic and lexical entries |
| | + | - Operas, stage plays, and pageants |
| | + | - Verse epics and (topographical) poems |
| | + | - Romances |
| | + | - Chapbooks |
| | + | - Peripheral references of non-fictional texts. |
| | | | |
| − | The world of the series as whole is a world with a thin line between literature and life; the complete Shakespeare is placed in hotel rooms together with the Bible and other religious books; streetfights between Surrealists and Realists, Marlowians and Baconists are not unusal; new artforms get abolished; and even the crossing of the border between fiction and reality became possible, which Hately describes “a reified form of intertextuality”. Bourdieu’s “cultural capital” has come true and solidified. | + | The project sketched herein aims to bridge the gap in Arthurian research with the development of a complex view on the options that bodies of knowledge have to survive in different genres and – in the extreme case – in derogatory glosses. |
| − | While belonging to the popular literature, the “high” culture is taken very seriously in Fforde’s universe. This seriousness is often iterated in the form of parody, all in all it is a “realist narration that is inflected through the fantastic” (1024). The core of the “classic” texts can be observed in all novels and mostly it is clear which novel(s) form(s) the major background for the respective novel – although never a similarity got as strong again as in the first; Genette’s hypertextuality does not really fit. One of the overarching questions will be, if the author does not simply indulge in clever allusions (and the reader also) – the series certainly “presumes a certain level of reader competence” as Hately states.
| + | As a researcher, one will highlight some trends over others if one wants or not. How one does this, is interesting. At the same time, the big lines of negotiation are interesting. These negotiations took place within the process of re-invention of historical research from the 16th to the 19th century; by and by, historical research gained power as scientific battleground of societal controversies. A second process from the 17th to 19th century led to the establishment of fiction, literature in today’s meaning. The Arthurian matter changed from a historical to a literary body of knowledge in this time. The process is marked by doubts, re-evaluations and, ultimately, a massive valorisation within the newly established cultural history. |
| − | | + | The aim is to fathom out how the knowledge about Arthur survived. This will show that changes in genre were used to allow re-evaluations without losing the value of the transmitted knowledge. The negotiations will show options to keep relevant a body of knowledge that cannot survive as historical truth any more. At this point, the proposed work promises a re-thinking of the function of genres. |
| − | The main Fantastic feature of the series is the“BookWorld”. This is the world in which the characters of books live, who are categorised into classes and governed by the Council of Genres et. al. Most notably, there is “Jurisfiction” the Literary Detectives who ensure that all plots run properly. In this metafictional background, Fforde comments upon issues of the actual literary apparatus: he applies criticism to books, by their own characters or others; he reinterprets; he plays with conventions, layouts (“Lorem Ipsum” as actual language) and other physical parts of books. Most interestingly, Fforde develops a model of the creation of books in which the author seemingly vanishes and is replaced by an – lastly unexplained – “imaginotransference device”; the real work is given to the reader. The books itself are created inside the BookWorld and the process is likened to both the construction of a giant engine and the (repetitive) performance of a play. The author remains as a kind of gateway/interface for writings – and changes have to be applied to the BookWorld or in the imagination of the reader which links back to it. In this context, author-text-reader relationships will have to be analysed in a postmodern environment. Does Fforde play with the ideas of this very theory or is he an example that the nouveau nouveau roman has reached popular literature as well?
| + | This thesis focuses on the Arthurian matter in early modern Great Britain, a subject matter of national dimension in the midst of the process that shaped today’s meaning of nation. Thus, the nation was concerned about whatever remained to be discussed between historical research and literary science, in addition to requirements set upon it by politics. On the one hand, one wondered if King Arthur, the mystic hero, really existed; on the other hand, one created as national literature a fictional domain in which one could take renewed pride. |
| − | | + | The work planned has thus components of the history of a subject matter, of politics, and of a fascinating discursive history. It will also deal with the creation of the category of literature an the early modern book market.[...] |
| − | The metafiction finally (so far) culminates into the appearance of the books of the series itself in the books (including an allegedly totally obliterated one), creating a mise-en-abyme par excellence, after a lot “lesser” creation of this kind. This, happening in the fifth (sixth?) book, will be another point to look at, together with the question of de facto biographical novels that are thematised in the same issue and the retrospect view of a guide telling all authors to never use time travel plots… a plot Fforde himself used up to one page before. | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Above all though, there is the question how the intertextual and the metafiction (and also allusion to other “high culture” achievements of our world) are linked together. Is there a central running theme concerning literature in literature; does the presented view change among the series? What aspects does the “cultural conservativism” in- and exclude; how does it deal with canons? Does the inside-genesis of books relate to the “death of the author”? How does the series play and instrumental the literary apparatus leading from author to printer, publisher, and reader, not leaving out the usual place for advertisement after the end of the story itself? How is intertextuality made use of? And finally, can Fforde’s novels be characterised as “postmodern” novels? Are they still novels with the “version updates” he provides on his website and directly advertises at the very beginning of his story?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Structural Outline==
| + | |
| − | <pre>
| + | |
| − | (A-Part: Theory)
| + | |
| − | 1. Postmodernism
| + | |
| − | 1.1 The Quest for Meaning
| + | |
| − | 1.2 Pastiche
| + | |
| − | 1.3 The Author
| + | |
| − | 1.4 …
| + | |
| − | 2. Metafiction
| + | |
| − | 2.1 Theory of Metafiction
| + | |
| − | 2.2 History of Metafiction
| + | |
| − | 2.3 Metafiction and Postmodernism
| + | |
| − | 3. Intertextuality
| + | |
| − | 3.1 Theory of Intertextuality
| + | |
| − | 3.2 Intertextuality and Postmodernism
| + | |
| − | (B-Part: Application)
| + | |
| − | 4. Jasper Fforde’s ‘First Among Sequels’
| + | |
| − | 4.1.1 Fantasising the Literary Apparatus {BookWorld, “bookish elements”, printing(?), literal cultural capital”}
| + | |
| − | 4.1.2 The Reader, the Author, and the ‘Actors’ {Reader Model, Imaginotransference, Construction of Books}
| + | |
| − | 4.1.2.1 Landen Parke-Laine: The Author Inside
| + | |
| − | 4.1.2.2 The End of the Novel Past the End {Continuation of the novel in movie-like special features; advertisement from the story past the en of the story…}
| + | |
| − | 4.2.1 Playing with Text {Lorem Ipsum, Font Style, Footnotes, “text-void”…}
| + | |
| − | 4.2.2 Rewriting Oneself {TN 1-6 totally rewritten at the end of TN5, time paradoxes, ending/plot of canonised texts}
| + | |
| − | 4.3.1 Intertextuality: Open Allusions and direct Quote – Scenery Reused {old novels as scenery, evoking devices for allusions; including the critical apparatus and discussion on the prior works}
| + | |
| − | 4.3.2 The Covert Intertext {Is there a difference to the more indirect mentions of and allusions to prior art?}
| + | |
| − | 5 Conclusion
| + | |
| − | </pre>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Preliminary Bibliography==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Primary Literature===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Fforde, Jasper: The Eyre Affair. London: Hodder & Stoughton 2001.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Fforde, Jasper: Lost in a Good Book. London: Hodder & Stoughton 2002.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Fforde, Jasper: The Well of Lost Plots. London: Hodder & Stoughton 2003.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Fforde Jasper: Something Rotten. London: Hodder & Stoughton 2004.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Fforder Jasper: First Among Sequels. London: Hodder & Stoughton 2007.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Secondary Literature===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Barthes, Roland: Der Tod des Autors. In: Texte zur Theorie der Autorschaft. Ed. Fotis Jannidis et. al. Stuttgart: Reclam 2003. pp. 181-93.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Bourdieu, Pierre: The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Ed. Randal Johnson. Cambridge: Clarendon Press 1989.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Bourdieu, Pierre; Jean-Claude Passeron: Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Trans. Richard Nice. London: Sage, 1990.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Dentith, Simon: Parody. The New Critical Idiom. Ed John Drakakis. London: Routledge 2000.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Flieger, Jerry Aline: Postmodern Perspective: The Paranoid Eye. New Literary History 28 (1997): 87-109.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Hateley, Erica, "The End of The Eyre Affair: Jane Eyre, Parody, and Popular Culture", Journal of Popular Culture, 38:6 (2005 Nov), pp. 1022-36. Accessed 25/06/2007 via <http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1540-5931.2005.00174.x>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Horstkotte, Martin: The Postmodern Fantastic in Contemporary British Fiction. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier 2004.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Horstkotte, Martin, "The Worlds of the Fantastic Other in Postmodern English Fiction". In: Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, 14:3 (2003 Fall). pp. 318-32.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Hutcheon, Linda: A Theory of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction. 2nd ed. London: Routledge 1996.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Hutcheon, Linda: A Theory of Parody. 2nd ed. London: Methuen 1985.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Hutcheon, Linda: Narcissistic Narrative. The metafictional paradox. London: Methuen 1985.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Lanier, Douglas: Shakespeare and Modern Popular Culture. Oxford Shakespeare topics. Ed. Stanley Wells. Oxford: Oxford UP 2002.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Lusty, Heather, "Struggling to Remember: War, Trauma, and the Adventures of Thursday Next". In: Popular Culture Review, 16:2 (2005 Summer). pp. 117-29.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Pratchett, Terry: Imaginary Worlds, Real Stories. Folklore October (2002): 159-68.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Stoneman, Patsy: Bronte Transformtions: The Cultural Dissemination of Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf 1996.
| + | |
Passed M.A. exam 2008.
Title of Magisterarbeit: Jasper Fforde's 'Thursday Next' (2001-2007). Intertextuality, Metafiction, Postmodernism
Currently researching about King Arthur in Early Modern England (1473-1800) and seeking employment as PhD student. (Researching on that very topic, obviously).
Even in the present day, King Arthur is part of popular myth building as well as scientific exploration, especially in connection with the European middle ages in which the Matière de Bretagne got widespread attention. There is no seamless connection from the high middle ages, the apex of the Arthurian Epic, to this day. The middle ages were afterwards shunned and had to be rediscovered by the Romantic Movement; Arthurian literature experiences a revival of its own at about 1800. This has been object of extensive research as has been the medieval treatment of Arthur.
The period of transfer between 1473 (the beginning of print) and 1800 (the rediscovery of the Middle Ages), on the other hand, has been hardly researched. The Arthurian matter was not lost. It can be found in:
- “Histories” and “Chronicles”
- Works of the humanities
- Encyclopaedic and lexical entries
- Operas, stage plays, and pageants
- Verse epics and (topographical) poems
- Romances
- Chapbooks
- Peripheral references of non-fictional texts.
The project sketched herein aims to bridge the gap in Arthurian research with the development of a complex view on the options that bodies of knowledge have to survive in different genres and – in the extreme case – in derogatory glosses.
As a researcher, one will highlight some trends over others if one wants or not. How one does this, is interesting. At the same time, the big lines of negotiation are interesting. These negotiations took place within the process of re-invention of historical research from the 16th to the 19th century; by and by, historical research gained power as scientific battleground of societal controversies. A second process from the 17th to 19th century led to the establishment of fiction, literature in today’s meaning. The Arthurian matter changed from a historical to a literary body of knowledge in this time. The process is marked by doubts, re-evaluations and, ultimately, a massive valorisation within the newly established cultural history.
The aim is to fathom out how the knowledge about Arthur survived. This will show that changes in genre were used to allow re-evaluations without losing the value of the transmitted knowledge. The negotiations will show options to keep relevant a body of knowledge that cannot survive as historical truth any more. At this point, the proposed work promises a re-thinking of the function of genres.
This thesis focuses on the Arthurian matter in early modern Great Britain, a subject matter of national dimension in the midst of the process that shaped today’s meaning of nation. Thus, the nation was concerned about whatever remained to be discussed between historical research and literary science, in addition to requirements set upon it by politics. On the one hand, one wondered if King Arthur, the mystic hero, really existed; on the other hand, one created as national literature a fictional domain in which one could take renewed pride.
The work planned has thus components of the history of a subject matter, of politics, and of a fascinating discursive history. It will also deal with the creation of the category of literature an the early modern book market.[...]
