User:Nico Zorn - Revision history

Nico Zorn: actalisation, PhD project

2009-12-14T09:30:15Z

actalisation, PhD project

@@ 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
-Title of Magisterarbeit: Jasper Fforde's 'Thursday Next' (2001-2007). Intertextuality, Metafiction, Postmodernism
+==King Arthur 1473-1800: Between History and Fiction==
-Introduction before ultimate revision: [[Magisterarbeit:Nico Zorn]]

Nico Zorn at 23:55, 20 June 2008

2008-06-20T23:55:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:55, 21 June 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:
	http://www.grimoires.de/inhalt.php?art=team&nr=1		http://www.grimoires.de/inhalt.php?art=team&nr=1

	~~Currently researching for the~~ Magisterarbeit:		Title of Magisterarbeit: Jasper Fforde's 'Thursday Next' (2001-2007). Intertextuality, Metafiction, Postmodernism
	=Jasper Fforde's 'Thursday Next' (2001-2007). Intertextuality, Metafiction, Postmodernism=		Introduction before ultimate revision: [[Magisterarbeit:Nico Zorn]]

	~~===~~Introduction ~~pending~~ ultimate revision~~===~~
	[[Magisterarbeit:Nico Zorn]]

Nico Zorn at 20:13, 14 March 2008

2008-03-14T20:13:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 14 March 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:
	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=

			===Introduction pending ultimate revision===
			[[Magisterarbeit:Nico Zorn]]

Nico Zorn: cleanup

2008-02-12T15:41:48Z

cleanup

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 12 February 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:
	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 :)

	~~The War of the Words [War of the Worlds]<br>~~
	~~Last Among Prequels [First Among Sequels]<br>~~
	~~Apocalypse Next [Apocalypse Now]<br>~~
	~~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>~~

	~~Hosing the Dolly [?]<br>~~
	~~Love among the begonias [~Chickens, ~Walnuts, ~Ruins, ~Cannibals; since it is a similar source probably referring to the walnuts. Totally "nuts" anyway.]<br>~~
	~~The Demonic Couplets by Salmon Thrusty [The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie]<br>~~
	~~Bananas for Edward [Flowers for Algernon]<br>~~
	~~The Mews of Doom [?]<br>~~
	~~Collecting the Undead [?]<br>~~

Nico Zorn at 17:17, 1 December 2007

2007-12-01T17:17:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:17, 1 December 2007
Line 27:		Line 27:
	The Mews of Doom [?]<br>		The Mews of Doom [?]<br>
	Collecting the Undead [?]<br>		Collecting the Undead [?]<br>


	~~<!-- Select Book Menu f. Artus-Excerpte; Sicherheitsspeicher ;) -->~~
	~~<div style="float:left;">Go to: [[Le Morte Darthur Book X\|Previous Book]]</div>~~
	~~<div style="float:right;">[[Le Morte Darthur Book X\|Next Book]]</div>~~
	<div style="text-align:center;"> Book [[Le Morte Darthur Book 1\|1]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 2\|2]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 3\|3]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 4\|4]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 5\|5]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 6\|6]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 7\|7]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 8\|8]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 9\|9]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 10\|10]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 11\|11]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 12\|12]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 13\|13]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 14\|14]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 15\|15]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 16\|16]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 17\|17]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 18\|18]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 19\|19]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 20\|20]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 21\|21]]</div>
	~~<!-- Select Book Menu -->~~

Nico Zorn: sicherung Excerptwechsel

2007-11-30T21:06:59Z

sicherung Excerptwechsel

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:06, 30 November 2007
Line 27:		Line 27:
	The Mews of Doom [?]<br>		The Mews of Doom [?]<br>
	Collecting the Undead [?]<br>		Collecting the Undead [?]<br>


			<!-- Select Book Menu f. Artus-Excerpte; Sicherheitsspeicher ;) -->
			<div style="float:left;">Go to: [[Le Morte Darthur Book X\|Previous Book]]</div>
			<div style="float:right;">[[Le Morte Darthur Book X\|Next Book]]</div>
			<div style="text-align:center;"> Book [[Le Morte Darthur Book 1\|1]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 2\|2]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 3\|3]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 4\|4]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 5\|5]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 6\|6]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 7\|7]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 8\|8]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 9\|9]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 10\|10]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 11\|11]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 12\|12]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 13\|13]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 14\|14]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 15\|15]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 16\|16]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 17\|17]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 18\|18]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 19\|19]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 20\|20]] [[Le Morte Darthur Book 21\|21]]</div>
			<!-- Select Book Menu -->

Nico Zorn at 21:00, 15 November 2007

2007-11-15T21:00:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:00, 15 November 2007
Line 22:		Line 22:

	Hosing the Dolly [?]<br>		Hosing the Dolly [?]<br>
	Love among the begonias [?]<br>		Love among the begonias [~Chickens, ~Walnuts, ~Ruins, ~Cannibals; since it is a similar source probably referring to the walnuts. Totally "nuts" anyway.]<br>
	The Demonic Couplets by Salmon Thrusty [The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie]<br>		The Demonic Couplets by Salmon Thrusty [The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie]<br>
	Bananas for Edward [Flowers for Algernon]<br>		Bananas for Edward [Flowers for Algernon]<br>
	The Mews of Doom [?]<br>		The Mews of Doom [?]<br>
	Collecting the Undead [?]<br>		Collecting the Undead [?]<br>

Nico Zorn: fake titles

2007-11-08T21:32:39Z

fake titles

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:32, 8 November 2007
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>

Nico Zorn at 20:42, 27 October 2007

2007-10-27T20:42:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 27 October 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:
	::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.		::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.
	::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.		::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.
	::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. 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.		::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.
	::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.--[[User:Nico Zorn\|Nico Zorn]] 22:33, 27 October 2007 (CEST)		::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)

Nico Zorn at 20:33, 27 October 2007

2007-10-27T20:33:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:33, 27 October 2007
Line 12:		Line 12:
	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.]		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.]
	: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)		: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)

			::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.
			::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.
			::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. 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.
			::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.--[[User:Nico Zorn\|Nico Zorn]] 22:33, 27 October 2007 (CEST)