|
|
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | | | |
| | Currently researching for the Magisterarbeit: | | Currently researching for the Magisterarbeit: |
| | + | =Jasper Fforde's 'Thursday Next' (2001-2007). Intertextuality, Metafiction, Postmodernism= |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| − | =Jasper Fforde's 'Thursday Next (2001-2007). Intertextuality, Metafiction, Postmodernism= | + | ==Questions I ponder== |
| | | | |
| | + | I here have a couple of fake titles modelled on existing ones... some I have found the reference (or think so) and I am pretty sure the other ones have references as well... so if you have any idea of the model/reference, tell me :) |
| | | | |
| − | ==Questions I ponder==
| + | The War of the Words [War of the Worlds]<br> |
| − | | + | Last Among Prequels [First Among Sequels]<br> |
| − | 1) I just wondered... Linda Hutcheon says (in very short) that there is a big difference in the reader's imaginative process when reading a FICTION (having no real referents) as opposed to a text that is not revealed as fiction. (Narcissistic Narrative, p. 97) Has there been any brainscans perhaps, looking for different brain activity? I am not thinking so much of the difference between a scientific text and a fantasy fiction text... more of a biography and a "novel". [It is clear that Hutcheon does not aim for this, at least not directly... but it would be interesting.]
| + | Apocalypse Next [Apocalypse Now]<br> |
| − | :What could brain scans prove - the difference is, I guess, rather one in the options you have, once you speak about these texts. If you suppose the text is true (Robinson actually spent these 28 years on his island - can you criticise his book for its plot line? The poor sailor gave his story and that's it. Things are different if we assume the real author is a certain Daniel Defoe, a political write, vulnerable in that position. You might immediately ask him why he wrote a story to this ending rather than any other. Whatever his hero did - Defoe would have had the chance to make him do something else. You read the fictitious text with the awareness that the author had it in his hands to entertain you to any end. That is, I feel, indeed a tremendous difference... --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 16:03, 27 October 2007 (CEST)
| + | Dark Reading Matter [?]<br> |
| | + | Paragraph Lost [Paradise Lost]<br> |
| | + | Herrings Red [um... a red herring in this list?]<br> |
| | + | The Palmipsets of Dr Caligari [The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari]<br> |
| | + | The Legion of the Danvers [The Legion of the X, for X having LOTS of models]<br> |
| | + | Some Other Title Entirely [probably just that]<br> |
| | + | (the above are announcements of the next book in a series. Which will, I suppose, rather get the last suggestion in a literal way.)<p> |
| | | | |
| − | ::I fully agree, that was not what I meant, though. There is also the question of referentiality of fictional texts w/ several possible answers and the question if a a question of "truth values" is ultimately valid (which it is INSIDE the universe of the fiction but not really outside, i.e. in our discourse on/about it). Your answer was more what Hutcheon meant.
| + | Hosing the Dolly [?]<br> |
| − | ::My question, though, was meant to ask if there is a difference in the actual thought processes in reading fiction and "real histories", i.e.: do we have different brain areas active for the two different tasks or does the brain treat them essentially the same? (And we then make assumptions/conclusions on/from the realness or fictitiousness of the story in question...presumably with other brain areas than a reading) This aimed a bit more at neurology than literary criticism. And it was only loosely connected to my work, just something that came up.
| + | Love among the begonias [?]<br> |
| − | ::Put differently: Is there a difference in how the brain, internally, works with texts that we somehow label "fiction" to the way in which it treats text we somehow labelled "fact"? Or are these processes identical and another "sorting" process occurs after which we can apply the differntiations you mentioned. ("Are there different brain activities depending on how a text is perceived in matters of fact/fiction or is reading all the same for any text and those decisions come in a (simultaneous or later) different process?") But do we initially sort fiction/fact (and maybe alternately switch reading one text sometimes as fiction, another time as fact?) or do we read in one universally mode and afterwards evaluate reality/fictitiousness? I am actually not sure if this _could_ be differentiated.
| + | The Demonic Couplets by Salmon Thrusty [The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie]<br> |
| − | ::Would it be useful to know? I imagine it could say something about learning-through-narratives/metanarratives if a reality register and a fictional register are immediately spearated... although...the more I think about it, the more I feel I have run into a dead-end. I somehow have in mind the mnemotic techniques of remembering by putting things into a story but just noticed that this has essentially not to do with the difference of reality and fiction - it just does not matter, at least not for remembering. I would guess it maybe is simultaneous thought processes but which have nothing to do with the reading itself. And I wanted to put two wholly distictive processes in place at first. --[[User:Nico Zorn|Nico Zorn]] 22:33, 27 October 2007 (CEST)
| + | Bananas for Edward [Flowers for Algernon]<br> |
| | + | The Mews of Doom [?]<br> |
| | + | Collecting the Undead [?]<br> |
I here have a couple of fake titles modelled on existing ones... some I have found the reference (or think so) and I am pretty sure the other ones have references as well... so if you have any idea of the model/reference, tell me :)
(the above are announcements of the next book in a series. Which will, I suppose, rather get the last suggestion in a literal way.)
