FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2103121013> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2103121013 endingPage "116" @default.
• W2103121013 startingPage "91" @default.
• W2103121013 abstract "“Real Authors and Real Readers: Omniscient Narration and a Discursive Approach to the Narrative Communication Model” Paul Dawson (bio) This paper sketches out some methodological coordinates for investigating the formal category of narrative voice in a broader discursive context. It seeks to reformulate the classic model of narrative communication in order to redress the imbalance of current narratological scholarship, which focuses on theorizing the role of real readers without due attention to real authors. I have developed this approach to investigate and explain a specific problem: how to account for the increased prominence of omniscient narration in literary fiction over the last two decades. Does contemporary omniscience differ from the classic omniscience of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century fiction, and if so, what does that difference say about the cultural status of the novel in current public discourse?1 I’ll begin by illustrating this problem through a brief discussion of narrative voice in William Makepeace Thackeray’s 1848 Vanity Fair and Martin Amis’ 1995 The Information. At one point in Thackeray’s novel, the narrator pauses to address readers as follows: If, a few pages back, the present writer claimed the privilege of peeping into Miss Amelia Sedley’s bedroom, and understanding with the omniscience of the novelist all the gentle pains and passions which were tossing upon that innocent [End Page 91] pillow, why should he not declare himself to be Rebecca’s confidant too, master of her secrets, and seal-keeper of that young woman’s conscience? (171). By contrast, Amis’ narrator laments, “And I made the signs—the M, the A—with my strange and twisted fingers, thinking: how can I ever play the omniscient, the all-knowing, when I don’t know anything?” (63). Both passages exemplify intrusive omniscient narration in that the narrators reflect on their own authority as storytellers, presenting themselves not just as narrators, but as novelists and authors of the books that we are reading. Each of these examples makes specific reference to the function of literary omniscience as a form of knowledge, about which there is an ongoing debate sparked by Jonathan Culler’s 2004 article in Narrative, entitled “Omniscience.” In my own contribution to that debate, I discussed how its parameters have been largely epistemological and theological: limited to asking how and how much an omniscient narrator “knows” about the fictional world, and what sort of narratorial figure or entity can be considered omniscient (Dawson 143–61). In a sense, Thackeray’s and Amis’ narrators are grappling self-reflexively with these same questions. What interests me in this essay, though, is not the questions themselves, but why the narrators foreground them. If we conduct a classic taxonomic study of these two novels, we will see that both narrators display all the knowledge of their respective fictional worlds characteristic of omniscient narration, including variable (or zero) focalization, access to consciousness, and spatio-temporal freedom. In terms of Gérard Genette’s category of mood, or the various means by which information about the story world is regulated, the novels differ little, although The Information is less panoramically ambitious, focalizing mainly through the protagonist Richard. In terms of Genette’s category of voice, or the narrating instance, the novels also differ little: the person, time, and level of the narrating are all the same. So if we tick off the list of their formal properties, we can classify synchronically these novels as omniscient. Yet surely there is a palpable difference between the performative stances that these two narrators adopt. In the Thackeray passage, the novelist confidently and playfully asserts the privilege of omniscient knowledge, whereas in the Amis passage, the narrator manifests anxiety about that omniscient authority. In fact, Amis’ narrator grapples not with a failure [End Page 92] of diegetic knowledge, but with a failure of novelistic insight resulting from his own limitations as a person. He reflects scenically on his own experience in order to ask whether he can satisfy his role as an observer of human nature. If there is a formal difference between these two examples of omniscient narration, it rests in Genette’s last and least developed element of voice: the function of the narrator.2 Both..." @default.
• W2103121013 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2103121013 creator A5020880728 @default.
• W2103121013 date "2012-01-01" @default.
• W2103121013 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2103121013 title "“Real Authors and Real Readers: Omniscient Narration and a Discursive Approach to the Narrative Communication Model”" @default.
• W2103121013 cites W1488607748 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W1497361322 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W1513027169 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W1526307746 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W1534697566 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W1552522725 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W1567316627 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W181878435 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W18455710 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W191038632 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W1972846630 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2004538788 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2021246180 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2041997754 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2081362971 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2083672481 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2094833661 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2131323289 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W213534550 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2144932352 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2152321171 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2160084077 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2161098141 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2161315621 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2229048158 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2320489418 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2325090742 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2333399879 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2335308203 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2488877709 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W2797258223 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W3005229669 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W654848988 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W659420548 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W968527600 @default.
• W2103121013 cites W985616358 @default.
• W2103121013 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/jnt.2012.0010" @default.
• W2103121013 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2103121013 type Work @default.
• W2103121013 sameAs 2103121013 @default.
• W2103121013 citedByCount "9" @default.
• W2103121013 countsByYear W21031210132015 @default.
• W2103121013 countsByYear W21031210132016 @default.
• W2103121013 countsByYear W21031210132018 @default.
• W2103121013 countsByYear W21031210132019 @default.
• W2103121013 countsByYear W21031210132020 @default.
• W2103121013 countsByYear W21031210132021 @default.
• W2103121013 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2103121013 hasAuthorship W2103121013A5020880728 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConcept C2776127325 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConcept C2776347870 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConceptScore W2103121013C107038049 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConceptScore W2103121013C111472728 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConceptScore W2103121013C124952713 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConceptScore W2103121013C138885662 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConceptScore W2103121013C142362112 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConceptScore W2103121013C144024400 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConceptScore W2103121013C199033989 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConceptScore W2103121013C2776127325 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConceptScore W2103121013C2776347870 @default.
• W2103121013 hasConceptScore W2103121013C95457728 @default.
• W2103121013 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2103121013 hasLocation W21031210131 @default.
• W2103121013 hasOpenAccess W2103121013 @default.
• W2103121013 hasPrimaryLocation W21031210131 @default.
• W2103121013 hasRelatedWork W1998837118 @default.
• W2103121013 hasRelatedWork W2103121013 @default.
• W2103121013 hasRelatedWork W2336179989 @default.
• W2103121013 hasRelatedWork W2347485680 @default.
• W2103121013 hasRelatedWork W2607389353 @default.
• W2103121013 hasRelatedWork W2610292643 @default.
• W2103121013 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2103121013 hasRelatedWork W2897205774 @default.
• W2103121013 hasRelatedWork W2933608806 @default.
• W2103121013 hasRelatedWork W817159728 @default.
• W2103121013 hasVolume "42" @default.
• W2103121013 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2103121013 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2103121013 magId "2103121013" @default.
• W2103121013 workType "article" @default.