Wolf Schmid Narratology Essay

In Western narratology, the introduction of the implied author concept was linked to work on the notion of the unreliable narrator, in other words, the axiological disconnection of the narrator from the horizon of values against which a work operates. The paradigmatic form of the concept was developed by Booth (Booth, Wayne C. ([1961] 1983). The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: Chicago UP.[1961] 1983), an American literary scholar belonging to the Chicago School (Kindt & Müller Kindt, Tom & Hans-Harald Müller (1999). “Der implizite Autor. Zur Explikation und Verwendung eines umstrittenen Begriffs.” F. Jannidis et al. (eds.). Rückkehr des Autors. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 273–87.1999, Kindt, Tom & Hans-Harald Müller (2006a). The Implied Author. Concept and Controversy. Berlin: de Gruyter.2006a, Kindt, Tom & Hans-Harald Müller (2006b). “Der implizite Autor. Zur Karriere und Kritik eines Begriffs zwischen Narratologie und Interpretationstheorie.” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 48, 163–90.2006b). Since Flaubert and in the Anglo-American sphere, particularly with Henry James, there had existed a view according to which authors should be objective, that is to say neutral and impassionate. Booth, in contrast, underlined the inescapable subjectivity of the author: “As he writes, [the real author] creates not simply an ideal, impersonal ‘man in general’, but an implied version of ‘himself’ that is different from the implied authors we meet in other men’s works. […] the picture the reader gets of his presence is one of the author’s most important effects. However impersonal he may try to be, his reader will inevitably construct a picture of the [author] who writes in this manner” (Booth Booth, Wayne C. ([1961] 1983). The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: Chicago UP.[1961] 1983: 70–1). These words have been understood by some as referring to a self-image intentionally created by the author. However, it is more likely that Booth’s rather imprecise formulation was meant to capture the idea that the creator of every product is inevitably and involuntarily represented through the indexical properties inherent in the product.

According to Booth, the implied author embodies the work’s “core norms and choices” (74). Booth, who subscribed to the criticism of the “intentional fallacy” presented by Wimsatt & Beardsley (Wimsatt, William K. & Monroe C. Beardsley ([1946] 1976). “The Intentional Fallacy.” D. Newton-de Molina (ed.). On Literary Intention. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1–13.[1946] 1976), hoped to sidestep two tenets of the New Criticism with the help of the implied author concept: the doctrine of autonomy and insistence on the need to concentrate solely on the work itself. As Booth (Booth, Wayne C. (1968). “‘The Rhetoric of Fiction’ and the Poetics of Fictions.” Novel: A Forum on Fiction 1, 105–17.1968: 112–13) objected, the New Criticism’s fight against a string of “fallacies” and “heresies” served to rule out not just the author but also the audience, the “world of ideas and beliefs,” and even “the narrative interest” itself. The concept of authorship in the work was meant to provide a way around these obstacles so as to make it possible to talk about a work’s meaning and intention without falling afoul of the criminal heresies.

Booth’s approach has subsequently been taken up and refined on many occasions (cf. in particular Iser Iser, Wolfgang ([1972] 1974). The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.[1972] 1974; Chatman Chatman, Seymour (1978). Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.1978: 147–49; Rimmon-Kenan Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith ([1983] 2002). Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London: Methuen.[1983] 2002: 87–8). Equivalent concepts have also been introduced, some closely associated with Booth’s, others less so. Eco (Eco, Umberto (1979). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana UP.1979), e.g., speaks of the “model author,” which he treats as an interpretive hypothesis of the empirical reader, and Easthope (Easthope, Antony (1983). Poetry as Discourse. London: Methuen.1983: 30–72) draws on the linguistic work of Benveniste in suggesting the term “subject of enunciation.” Building on the Slavic origins of the concept, Schmid (Schmid, Wolf (1973). Der Textaufbau in den Erzählungen Dostoevskijs. Amsterdam: Grüner.1973) introduced the term “abstract author” (taken up by, e.g., Link Link, Hannelore (1976). Rezeptionsforschung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.1976: 40; Lintvelt Lintvelt, Jaap ([1981] 1989). Essai de typologie narrative. Le “point de vue” Théorie et analyse. Paris: Corti.[1981] 1989: 17–22; Hoek Hoek, Leo H. (1981). La marque du titre. La Haye: Mouton.1981), which he has subsequently defended against criticism (Schmid Schmid, Wolf (1986). “Nachwort zur zweiten Auflage. Eine Antwort an die Kritiker.” W. Sch. Der Textaufbau in den Erzählungen Dostoevskijs. Amsterdam: Grüner, 299–318.1986: 300–06; cf. also the revision in Schmid Schmid, Wolf ([2005] 2008). Elemente der Narratologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.[2005] 2008: 45–64; 2010: 36–51).

   [19]

3.3 The Implied Author Debate

[20]

The concept of the implied author has given rise to heated debate. Hempfer (Hempfer, Klaus W. (1977). “Zur pragmatischen Fundierung der Texttypologie.” W. Hinck (ed.). Textsortenlehre – Gattungsgeschichte. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1–26.1977: 10) passed categorical judgment over the concepts of the implied (in his words “implizit,” i.e. “implicit”) author and reader, writing that the two entities “not only seem to be of no theoretical use but also obscure the real fundamental distinction, that between the speech situation in the text and that outside it.” Over two decades later, Zipfel (Zipfel, Frank (2001). Fiktion, Fiktivität, Fiktionalität. Berlin: Schmidt.2001: 120) presented a similar indictment of the implied author, condemning the concept as “superfluous to narrative theory,” “hopelessly vague,” and “terminologically imprecise.” Bal has established herself as a bitter opponent of both Booth’s implied author and Schmid’s abstract author. These “superfluous” concepts (Bal, Mieke (1981a). “The Laughing Mice, or: on Focalisation.” Poetics Today 2, 202–10.1981a: 208–09), she believes, have fostered the misguided practice of isolating authors from the ideologies of their works. The implied author, she believes, is a deceptive notion that promised to account for the ideology of the text. “This would have made it possible to condemn a text without condemning its author and vice versa—a very attractive proposition to the autonomists of the ’60s” (Bal, Mieke (1981b). “Notes on Narrative Embedding.” Poetics Today 2, 41–59.1981b: 42).

[21]

More balanced criticism has been put forward in many forms. The objections raised can be summarized as follows: (a) unlike the fictive narrator, the implied author is not a pragmatic agent but a semantic entity (Nünning Nünning, Ansgar (1989). Grundzüge eines kommunikationstheoretischen Modells der erzählerischen Vermittlung. Trier: WVT.1989: 33, Nünning, Ansgar (1993). “Renaissance eines anthropomorphisierten Passepartouts oder Nachruf auf ein literaturkritisches Phantom? Überlegungen und Alternativen zum Konzept des ‘implied author’.” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 67, 1–25.1993: 9); (b) the implied author is no more than a reader-created construct (Rimmon-Kenan Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith ([1983] 2002). Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London: Methuen.[1983] 2002: 87; Toolan Toolan, Michael J. ([1988] 2001). Narrative. A Critical Linguistic Introduction. London: Routledge.[1988] 2001: 64) and as such should not be personified (Nünning Nünning, Ansgar (1989). Grundzüge eines kommunikationstheoretischen Modells der erzählerischen Vermittlung. Trier: WVT.1989: 31–32); (c) despite repeated warnings against an overly anthropomorphic understanding of the implied author, Chatman (Chatman, Seymour (1978). Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.1978: 151) puts forward a model in which the implied author functions as a participant in communication—which is, according to Rimmon-Kenan (Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith ([1983] 2002). Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London: Methuen.[1983] 2002: 89), precisely what the implied author is not; (d) in so far as it involves a semantic rather than a structural phenomenon, the concept of the implied author belongs to the poetics of interpretation rather than the poetics of narration (Diengott Diengott, Nilli (1993). “Implied Author, Motivation and Theme and Their Problematic Status.” Orbis Litterarum 48, 181–93.1993: 189); (e) Booth and those who have used the concept after him have not shown how to identify the implied author of any given text (Kindt & Müller Kindt, Tom & Hans-Harald Müller (2006b). “Der implizite Autor. Zur Karriere und Kritik eines Begriffs zwischen Narratologie und Interpretationstheorie.” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 48, 163–90.2006b: 167–68).

[22]

These criticisms are perfectly legitimate, but they are not sufficient to justify excluding the implied author from the attention of narratology. Many critics continue to use the concept, clearly because no better term can be found for expressing that authorial element whose presence is inferred in a work.

[23]

It is also striking that those who advocate abandoning the implied author have put forward few convincing alternatives. Nünning, e.g., who believes that it is “terminologically imprecise,” “theoretically inadequate,” and “unusable in practice,” suggests replacing it with the “totality of all the formal and structural relations in a text” (Nünning, Ansgar (1989). Grundzüge eines kommunikationstheoretischen Modells der erzählerischen Vermittlung. Trier: WVT.1989: 36). In a chapter “In Defense of the Implied Author,” Chatman (Chatman, Seymour (1990). Coming to Terms. The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.1990: 74–89) suggests a series of alternatives for readers uneasy with the term implied author: “text implication”; “text instance”; “text design”; or simply “text intent.” Finally, Kindt & Müller (Kindt, Tom & Hans-Harald Müller (1999). “Der implizite Autor. Zur Explikation und Verwendung eines umstrittenen Begriffs.” F. Jannidis et al. (eds.). Rückkehr des Autors. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 273–87.1999: 285–86) identify two courses of action. We should, they suggest, either replace the term implied author with that of “author” itself (which would attract familiar objections from anti-intentionalistic quarters); or, if a non-intentionalistic concept of meaning is to be retained, we should speak instead of “text intention.” (Since texts as such do not have intentions, the latter term brings with it an undesirable metonymic shift from maker to product.)

[24]

The case of Genette sheds light on the double-sided view of the implied author concept held by many theorists. Genette did not cover the implied author in his Narrative Discourse (Genette, Gérard ([1972] 1980). Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca: Cornell UP.[1972] 1980), which led to a certain amount of criticism (e.g., Rimmon Rimmon, Shlomith (1976). “A Comprehensive Theory of Narrative: Genette’s Figures III and the Structuralist Study of Fiction.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1, 33–62.1976: 58; Bronzwaer Bronzwaer, Wilhelmus J. M. (1978). “Implied Author, Extradiegetic Narrator and Public Reader.” Neophilologus 62, 1–18.1978: 3); he then devoted an entire chapter to it in Narrative Discourse Revisited (Genette, Gérard ([1983] 1988). Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca: Cornell UP.[1983] 1988: 135–54). Detailed analysis in the latter work leads to a conclusion that is not at all unfavorable to the implied author. Genette observes first that, because it is not specific to the récit, the auteur impliqué is not the concern of narratology. His answer to the question “is the implied author a necessary and (therefore) valid agent between the narrator and the real author?” (139; emphasis in original) is ambivalent. The implied author, he says, is clearly not an actual agent, but is conceivably an ideal agent: “the implied author is everything the text lets us know about the author” (148). But we should not, Genette warns, turn this “idea of the author” into a narrative agent. This places Genette in a position not so different from that of the proponents of “full-blown models” of narrative communication to which he refers (Schmid Schmid, Wolf (1973). Der Textaufbau in den Erzählungen Dostoevskijs. Amsterdam: Grüner.1973; Chatman Chatman, Seymour (1978). Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.1978; Bronzwaer Bronzwaer, Wilhelmus J. M. (1978). “Implied Author, Extradiegetic Narrator and Public Reader.” Neophilologus 62, 1–18.1978; Hoek Hoek, Leo H. (1981). La marque du titre. La Haye: Mouton.1981; Lintvelt Lintvelt, Jaap ([1981] 1989). Essai de typologie narrative. Le “point de vue” Théorie et analyse. Paris: Corti.[1981]1989), none of whom intended to make the implied author a narrative agent.

[25]

That the debate over the existence and utility of the concept of the implied author has not yet come to a standstill is attested by a special issue of Style (Vol. 45, 2011) Implied Author: Back from the Grave or Simply Dead Again? This question has been formulated by the guest editor Richardson who, examining cases in which “the values, sensibility or beliefs of the implied author differ radically from those of the actual author” (Richardson, Brian (2011). “Introduction. Implied Author: Back from the Grave or Simply Dead Again?” Style 45, 1–10.2011: 6), comes to three conclusions: 1) “the implied author does not communicate”; 2) “we can predicate values of an inferred author based on the material of a given text”; 3) “the implied author remains a very useful heuristic construct” (7). Shen (Shen, Dan (2011). “What is the Implied Author?” Style 45, 80–98.2011) also argues in favor of the concept, making clear its relevance and significance in today’s critical context. Ryan (Ryan, Marie-Laure (2011). “Meaning, Intent, and the Implied Author.” Style 45, 29–47.2011) proposes a critique of the three functions assigned to the implied author (“1. The implied author is a necessary parameter in the communicative model of literary narrative fiction. 2. The implied author is a design principle, responsible for the narrative techniques and the plot of the text. 3. The implied author is the source of the norms and values communicated by the text.”). Her conclusion is that if an author figure reveals itself through a text, it is as the manifestation of a real person that this figure attracts the interest of the reader. Lanser (Lanser, Susan (2011). “The Implied Author: An Agnostic’s Manifesto.” Style 45, 153–60.2011) formulates “An Agnostic’s Manifesto” containing eight propositions that are meant to “speak to theorists on both sides of the implied author divide” (153). She concludes by calling for an empirical inquiry into whether and how belief in an implied author might affect the poetic or hermeneutic enterprise: “We will learn more about implied authorship by testing out how readers process a sense of the author than by continued debate” (158).

   [26]

3.4 Towards an Impartial Definition

[27]

The implied author can be defined as one of the correlates of the indexical signs in a text that a recipient, depending on his or her conception of the work’s intention, may interpret as referring to the author of that text. These signs mark out a specific world-view and aesthetic standpoint. The implied author is not an intentional creation of the concrete author and differs categorically in this respect from the narrator, who is always an implicitly, or even explicitly, represented entity. The implied author belongs to a different level of the work; the implied author stands for the principle behind the fabrication of a narrator and the represented world in its entirety, the principle behind the composition of the work (note here Hühn’s “subject of composition” [Hühn, Peter (1995). Geschichte der englischen Lyrik, vol. 1. Tübingen: Francke.1995: 5], a development of Easthope’s “subject of enunciation” [Easthope, Antony (1983). Poetry as Discourse. London: Methuen.1983]). The implied author has no voice of its own, no text. Its word is the entire text with all its levels. Its position is defined by both ideological and aesthetic norms.

[28]

The implied author has only a virtual existence in the work and can be grasped only by turning to the traces left behind in the work by the creative acts of production, taking concrete shape only with the help of the reader. The implied author is a construct formed by the reader on the basis of his or her reading of the work. If the process of construction is not to simply confirm to the meanings that readers want to find in the first place, it must be based on the evidence in the text and the constraints this places on the freedom of interpretation. It would therefore be more appropriate to speak of “reconstruction” instead of “construction.”

[29]

The implied authors of various works by a single concrete author display certain common features and thereby constitute what we might call an œuvre author, a stereotype that Booth (Booth, Wayne C. (1979). Critical Understanding: The Powers and Limits of Pluralism. Chicago: Chicago UP.1979: 270) refers to as a “career author.” There are also more general author stereotypes that re-late not to an œuvre but to literary schools, stylistic currents, periods, and genres.

[30]

Contrary to the impression given by the term “author’s image,” the relation between the implied author and the real author should not be pictured in such a way that the former becomes a reflection or copy of the latter. And despite the connotations of the German impliziter Autor (implicit author, which brings with it a shift from the reception-based orientation of implied to an ontologizing concept), the implied author cannot be modeled as the mouthpiece of the real author. It is not unusual for authors to experiment with their world-views and put their beliefs to the test in their works. In some cases, authors use their works to depict possibilities that cannot be realized in the context of their real-life existence, adopting in the process standpoints on certain issues that they could not or would not wish to adopt in reality. In such cases, the implied author can be more radical than the real author ever really was or, more circumspectly, than we imagine him or her to have been on the basis of the evidence available. Such radicalization of the implied author is characteristic, e.g., of Tolstoj’s late works. The late Tolstoj was much less convinced by many of his ideas than his implied authors; the latter embodied, and took to extremes, one particular dimension of Tolstoj’s thought. Conversely, it is also possible for the ideological horizons of the implied author to be broader than the more or less markedly ideologically constrained ones of the real author. An example of this is Dostoevskij, who in his late novels developed a remarkable understanding of ideologies that he vehemently attacked as a journalist.

[31]

Dostoevskij’s last novel, The Brothers Karamazov, shows another phenomenon, a split of the implied author: whereas ‘Dostoevskij I’ designs the novel as a modern theodicy, ‘Dostoevskij II’ undermines this intention by a subliminal critique of God. The whole novel is characterized by a restless oscillation between the “Pro” of the intending and controlling Dostoevskij I and the “Contra” of its subversive antagonist Dostoevskij II.

   [32]

3.5 Relevance to Narratology

[33]

Why should a semantic entity that is neither a pragmatic participant in communication nor a specific component of the narrative work be the concern of narratology at all? Recall here Rimmon (Rimmon, Shlomith (1976). “A Comprehensive Theory of Narrative: Genette’s Figures III and the Structuralist Study of Fiction.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1, 33–62.1976: 58), who points out that “without the implied author it is difficult to analyze the ‘norms’ of the text, especially when they differ from those of the narrator.” Similarly, Bronzwaer (Bronzwaer, Wilhelmus J. M. (1978). “Implied Author, Extradiegetic Narrator and Public Reader.” Neophilologus 62, 1–18.1978: 3) notes that “we need an instance that calls the extradiegetic narrator into existence, which is responsible for him in the same way as he is responsible for the diegesis.” Chatman (Chatman, Seymour (1990). Coming to Terms. The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.1990: 76) points out another advantage of the concept when he writes that “positing an implied author inhibits the overhasty assumption that the reader has direct access through the fictional text to the real author’s intentions and ideology.”

[34]

The concept of the implied author is particularly useful in textual interpretation because it helps us describe the layered process by which meaning is generated. The existence of the implied author, not part of the represented world but nonetheless part of the work, casts a shadow over the narrator, who often appears as master of the situation and seems to have control over the semantic order of the work. The presence of the implied author highlights the fact that narrators, their texts, and the meanings expressed in them are all represented. Only on the level of the implied author do these meanings acquire their ultimate semantic intention. The presence of the implied author in the work, above the characters and the narrator and their associated levels of meaning, establishes a new semantic level arching over the whole work: the authorial level.

   [35]

4 Topics for Further Research

[36]

(a) Where systematic considerations and practical applications are concerned, there is a pressing need to identify the indexical signs that refer to the implied author, and to distinguish between author- and narrator-specific indexes. (b) The manifestation of the implied author in different periods, cultural spheres, text types, and genres has yet to be examined in detail. (c) The presence of the implied author in non-verbal narratives is an important issue.

   [37]

5 Bibliography

   [38]

5.1 Works Cited

  • Bal, Mieke (1981a). “The Laughing Mice, or: on Focalisation.” Poetics Today 2, 202–10.
  • Bal, Mieke (1981b). “Notes on Narrative Embedding.” Poetics Today 2, 41–59.
  • Balcerzan, Edward (1968). “Styl i poetyka twórczości dwujęzycznej Brunona Jasińskiego.” Z zagadnień teorii przekładu. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, 14–16.
  • Booth, Wayne C. ([1961] 1983). The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: Chicago UP.
  • Booth, Wayne C. (1968). “‘The Rhetoric of Fiction’ and the Poetics of Fictions.” Novel: A Forum on Fiction 1, 105–17.
  • Booth, Wayne C. (1979). Critical Understanding: The Powers and Limits of Pluralism. Chicago: Chicago UP.
  • Bronzwaer, Wilhelmus J. M. (1978). “Implied Author, Extradiegetic Narrator and Public Reader.” Neophilologus 62, 1–18.
  • Bühler, Karl ([1934] 2011). Theory of Language. The Representational Function of Language. Tr. by D. F. Goodwin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Červenka, Miroslav ([1969] 1978). “Das literarische Werk als Zeichen.” Der Bedeutungsaufbau des literarischen Werks. München: Fink, 163–83.
  • Chatman, Seymour (1978). Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
  • Chatman, Seymour (1990). Coming to Terms. The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
  • Čudakov, Aleksandr (1992). “V. V. Vinogradov i ego teorija poėtiki.” Slovo―vešč’―mir. Moskva: Sovremennyj pisatel’, 219–64.
  • Diengott, Nilli (1993). “Implied Author, Motivation and Theme and Their Problematic Status.” Orbis Litterarum 48, 181–93.
  • Easthope, Antony (1983). Poetry as Discourse. London: Methuen.
  • Eco, Umberto (1979). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
  • Fieguth, Rolf (1975). “Einleitung.” R. F. Literarische Kommunikation. Kronberg: Scriptor, 9–22.
  • Genette, Gérard ([1972] 1980). Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
  • Genette, Gérard ([1983] 1988). Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
  • Gölz, Christine (2009). “Autortheorien im slavischen Funktionalismus.” W. Schmid (ed.). Slavische Narratologie. Russische und tschechische Ansätze. Berlin: de Gruyter, 187–237.
  • Hempfer, Klaus W. (1977). “Zur pragmatischen Fundierung der Texttypologie.” W. Hinck (ed.). Textsortenlehre – Gattungsgeschichte. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1–26.
  • Hoek, Leo H. (1981). La marque du titre. La Haye: Mouton.
  • Hühn, Peter (1995). Geschichte der englischen Lyrik, vol. 1. Tübingen: Francke.
  • Iser, Wolfgang ([1972] 1974). The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
  • Kindt, Tom & Hans-Harald Müller (1999). “Der implizite Autor. Zur Explikation und Verwendung eines umstrittenen Begriffs.” F. Jannidis et al. (eds.). Rückkehr des Autors. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 273–87.
  • Kindt, Tom & Hans-Harald Müller (2006a). The Implied Author. Concept and Controversy. Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Kindt, Tom & Hans-Harald Müller (2006b). “Der implizite Autor. Zur Karriere und Kritik eines Begriffs zwischen Narratologie und Interpretationstheorie.” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 48, 163–90.
  • Korman, Boris (1977). “O celostnosti literaturnogo proizvedenija.” Izbrannye trudy po teorii i istorii literatury. Iževsk: Izd. Udmurtskogo un-ta, 119–28.
  • Lanser, Susan (2011). “The Implied Author: An Agnostic’s Manifesto.” Style 45, 153–60.
  • Link, Hannelore (1976). Rezeptionsforschung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
  • Lintvelt, Jaap ([1981] 1989). Essai de typologie narrative. Le “point de vue” Théorie et analyse. Paris: Corti.
  • Mukařovský, Jan (1937). “L’individu dans l’art.” Deuxième congrès international d’esthétique et de la science de l’art. Paris: F. Alcan, vol. 1, 349–54.
  • Nünning, Ansgar (1989). Grundzüge eines kommunikationstheoretischen Modells der erzählerischen Vermittlung. Trier: WVT.
  • Nünning, Ansgar (1993). “Renaissance eines anthropomorphisierten Passepartouts oder Nachruf auf ein literaturkritisches Phantom? Überlegungen und Alternativen zum Konzept des ‘implied author’.” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 67, 1–25.
  • Okopień-Sławińska, Alexandra ([1971] 1975). “Die personalen Relationen in der literarischen Kommunikation.” R. Fieguth (ed.). Literarische Kommunikation. Kronberg: Scriptor, 127–47.
  • Richardson, Brian (2011). “Introduction. Implied Author: Back from the Grave or Simply Dead Again?” Style 45, 1–10.
  • Rimmon, Shlomith (1976). “A Comprehensive Theory of Narrative: Genette’s Figures III and the Structuralist Study of Fiction.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1, 33–62.
  • Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith ([1983] 2002). Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London: Methuen.
  • Ryan, Marie-Laure (2011). “Meaning, Intent, and the Implied Author.” Style 45, 29–47.
  • Rymar’, Nikolaj & Vladislav Skobelev (1994). Teorija avtora i problema chudožestvennoj dejatel’nosti. Voronež: Logos-Trast.
  • Schmid, Wolf (1973). Der Textaufbau in den Erzählungen Dostoevskijs. Amsterdam: Grüner.
  • Schmid, Wolf (1986). “Nachwort zur zweiten Auflage. Eine Antwort an die Kritiker.” W. Sch. Der Textaufbau in den Erzählungen Dostoevskijs. Amsterdam: Grüner, 299–318.
  • Schmid, Wolf ([2005] 2008). Elemente der Narratologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Schmid, Wolf (2010). Narratology. An Introduction. Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Shen, Dan (2011). “What is the Implied Author?” Style 45, 80–98.
  • Sławiński, Janusz (1966). “O kategorii podmiotu lirycznego. Tezy referatu.” J. Trzynadłowski (ed.). Wiersz i poezja. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, 55–62.
  • Sławiński, Janusz ([1967] 1975). “Die Semantik der narrativen Äußerung.” Literatur als System und Prozeß. München: Nymphenburger, 81–109.
  • Toolan, Michael J. ([1988] 2001). Narrative. A Critical Linguistic Introduction. London: Routledge.
  • Tynjanov, Jurij ([1927] 1971). “On Literary Evolution.” L. Matejka & K. Pomorska (eds.). Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views. Cambridge: MIT P, 66–78.
  • Vinogradov, Viktor (1971). “Problema obraza avtora v chudožestvennoj literature.” O teorii chudožestvennoj reči. Moskva: Izd. Vysšaja škola, 105–211.
  • Wimsatt, William K. & Monroe C. Beardsley ([1946] 1976). “The Intentional Fallacy.” D. Newton-de Molina (ed.). On Literary Intention. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1–13.
  • Zipfel, Frank (2001). Fiktion, Fiktivität, Fiktionalität. Berlin: Schmidt.

   [39]

5.2 Further Reading

  • Booth, Wayne C. (2005). “Resurrection of the Implied Author. Why Bother?” J. Phelan & P. Rabinowitz (eds.). A Companion to Narrative Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 75–88.
  • Díaz Arenas, Angel (1986). Introduccion y Metodología de la Instancia del Autor/Lector y del Autor/Lector abstracto-implícito. Kassel: Edition Reichenberger.
  • Kahrmann, Cordula, et al. ([1977] 1996). Erzähltextanalyse. Weinheim: Beltz.
  • Schmid, Wolf (2008). “Zum ‘Autor im Text’ – eine Replik auf Willem Weststeijn am Beispiel Dostoevskijs.” E. de Haard et al. (eds.). Literature and Beyond. Festschrift for Willem G. Weststeijn on the Occasion of his 65. Birthday. Amsterdam: Pegasus, 701–12.
  • Schönert, Jörg (1999). “Empirischer Autor, Impliziter Autor und Lyrisches Ich.” F. Jannidis et al. (eds.). Rückkehr des Autors. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 289–94.
  • Weststeijn, Willem (1984). “Author and Implied Author. Some Notes on the Author in the Text.” J. J. van Baak (ed.). Signs of Friendship. To Honour A.G.F. van Holk, Slavist, Linguist, Semiotician. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 553–68.
  • Yacobi, Tamar (1981). “Fictional Reliability as a Communicative Problem.” Poetics Today 2, 113–26.

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF: WOLF SCHMID (University of Hamburg,Forschergruppe Narratologie) & WILLEM G. WESTSTEIJN (University of Amsterdam, Instituut voor Cultuur en Analyse (ASCA) The Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis)

EXECUTIVE EDITOR: DENNIS IOFFE (University of Amsterdam, Ghent University).

Issued under the auspices of University of Amsterdam ASCA (Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis) with the assistance from University of Hamburg, Forschergruppe Narratologie.

Narratology of Culture encompasses the entire spectrum of narrative theory, from Russian Formalism to French Structuralism, and from Bakhtin to the contemporary poststructuralists or 'postclassicists'. It deals with traditional forms of narrative, as in literature (novels, short stories, memoirs, epic poetry), but also with new forms (film, audio-plays, music-theatre). This approach works with any cultural 'text' that functions as a narrative message between sender and receiver.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *