• Current
• Archives
• Log In
• Register
• Announcements
• About JLT Articles
• For Authors

Home > Vol 12, No 2 (2018) > Zipfel

Frank Zipfel

Emotion, Darstellung, Fiktion. Literaturtheoretische Überlegungen zum Verhältnis zwischen Fiktionsparadox und Mimesisparadox

Full-length article in: JLT 12/2 (2018), 321–341.

The discussions around the paradox of fiction that began 40 years ago have slowed down considerably during the last decade. The main reason for this decrease of interest can be seen in the fact that many theories have tried to show that the paradox can be solved or never existed. Nevertheless, there is hardly any major work on the theory of fiction that does not deal with the paradox in some way or other. Nowadays, however, the interest in the discussion has moved away from attempting to solve the paradox. Contemporary theory of fiction is rather interested in the question whether and how the long-lasting and extensive discussions around the paradox have led to a better understanding of the nature and variety of our emotional responses to fiction. This paper, however, sets out to investigate the discussions around the paradox from a different perspective. It undertakes to identify the blind spots in the discussions around the paradox, i. e. it aims at examining which aspects of our emotional response to fictional works did not come into view and, thus, have been neglected by the way in which the paradox has usually been dealt with.

One of the most popular strategies for dealing with the paradox consists in comparing our emotional response towards fictional works with our emotional response towards objects that are before our eyes (or that we experience via other senses) and towards events that are actually going on around us. This strategy has led to unsatisfactory results because it highlights the representational content of art works and neglects the particular ways in which this content is depicted. It thereby fails to take into account one of the most crucial aspects of fictional works, i. e. the fact that they are representations. Few theorists have questioned this popular strategy. Among them are R. Moran, who claims that emotional reactions to objects in the actual here and now should not be considered as the paradigms of our emotional involvements when we deal with fictional texts, P. Goldie, who maintains that most of our emotional reactions regard non-actual states of affairs, and D. Matravers who distinguishes between emotional reactions in confrontation situations and those towards representations. And these doubts about the way the paradox is dealt with have hardly had any impact on the discussion. It can be shown, however, that due to the fundamental differences between emotional reactions regarding objects we are confronted with and objects we learn about via representations, some of the answers given to the questions that have been treated in the discussion around the paradox implicitly dealt with the representational aspect of fictional works but not specifically with their fictionality. Moreover, by analysing the theories by R. Moran, P. Goldie and D. Matravers it is argued that widely neglected, but helpful questions can be raised if we compare the emotional response to fictional representations with the emotional response to factual representations instead of comparing it to our emotions in real life situations. Especially Matravers’ theory has several advantages: it respects the representational aspects of our emotional response to texts and other art works, it provides us with an account that is based on semiotic features of these art works and the way we process them, and it can be productively linked to other relevant concepts like R. Gerrig’s willing construction of disbelief or H. Rott’s doxastic voluntarism. Moreover, by comparing Matravers’ theory of emotional response to (fictional) representations with the corresponding theory in G. Currie’s early works it is possible to raise further arguments in favour of the thesis that an explicit exploration of the representational aspects of fictional works is of vital importance for a discriminating theory regarding our emotional response to fiction.

However, Matravers’ theory is not entirely satisfactory because it postulates that there are no differences between emotional responses towards fictional representations and those towards factual ones. It is argued that taking into account the representational aspects of factual and fictional works might be a promising way to look for such differences. Investigations into our various emotional responses to fictional works would then be led against the backdrop of our responses to factual representations. Moreover, insight might be gained if we compare fictional representations not only to truthful factual representations but also to deceitful ones. Such an approach that looks beyond the problems that have been debated in the discussions around the paradox of fiction would be able to fill the gaps regarding our response to fictional artworks caused by these discussions. This would lead us to learn to distinguish between the kinds of emotional responses that are specific for representations in general and those that are specific for fictional representations. Moreover, it would enable our investigations into the emotional responses to fictional works to take into account two aspects that have also often been neglected in the discussions around the paradox of fiction: the differences between the various semiotic systems on which works of the differing artforms are based and the specific representational features that are linked to the fictionality of every specific work.

References

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, Biographia Literaria [1817], 2 Vols., ed. by John Shawcross, Reprinted, London 1969.

Cooke, Janet, Jimmy’s World, Washington Post (28. 09. 1980), A1.

Currie, Gregory, The Nature of Fiction, Cambridge et al. 1990.

Currie, Gregory, The Paradox of Caring. Fiction and the Philosophy of Mind, in: Mette Hjort/Sue Laver (eds.), Emotion and the Arts, Oxford et al. 1997, 62–77.

Dadlez, Eva M./Chelsea M. Haramia, Fictional Objects, Future Objectives. Why Existence Matters Less than You Think, Philosophy and Literature 39:1 (2015), A1–A15.

Davies, Stephen, Responding Emotionally to Fictions, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 67:3 (2009), 269–284.

Degering, Klaus, ›Fiction as Fact‹. Eine Analyse des Pulitzer Fraud (1980–1981), Poetica 15:1/2 (1983), 151–178.

Eco, Umberto, Im Wald der Fiktionen. Sechs Streifzüge durch die Literatur, übers. von Burkhart Kroeber, München/Wien 1994.

Feagin, Susan L., Emotions from the Perspective of Analytic Aesthetics, Journal of Literary Theory 1:2 (2007), 275–291.

Frijda, Nico H., The Emotions, Cambridge et al. 1986.

Gertken, Jan/Tilmann Köppe, Fiktionalität, in: Simone Winko/Fotis Jannidis/Gerhard Lauer (eds.), Grenzen der Literatur. Zu Begriff und Phänomen des Literarischen, Berlin et al. 2009, 228–266.

Gerrig, Richard J., Experiencing Narrative Worlds. On the Psychological Activities of Reading, New Haven, CT et al. 1993.

Gerrig, Richard J./David N. Rapp, Psychological Processes Underlying Literary Impact, Poetics Today 25:2 (2004), 265–281.

Gerrig, Richard J., Conscious and Unconscious Processes in Readers’ Narrative Experiences, in: Greta Olson (ed.), Current Trends in Narratology, Berlin et al. 2011, 37–60.

Grice, Herbert Paul, Logic and Conversation [1967], in: Peter Cole/Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, New York et al. 1975, 41–58.

Goldie, Peter, Narrative, Emotion and Perspective, in: Matthew Kieran/Dominic McIver Lopes (eds.), Imagination, Philosophy and the Arts, London/New York 2003, 54–68.

Goodman, Nelson/Catherine Z. Elgin, Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences, London 1988.

Harris, Paul L., The Work of the Imagination, Oxford 2000.

Hjort, Mette/Sue Laver (eds.), Emotion and the Arts, Oxford et al. 1997.

Kablitz, Andreas, Kunst des Möglichen. Prolegomena zu einer Theorie der Fiktion, Poetica 35:3/4 (2003), 251–273.

Köppe, Tilmann, Evolutionary Psychology and the Paradox ofFiction, Studies in the Literary Imagination 42:2 (2009), 125–151.

Lamarque, Peter, How Can We Fear and Pity Fictions?, British Journal of Aesthetics 21:4 (1981), 291–304.

Levinson, Jerrold, Emotion in Response to Art. A Survey of the Terrain, in: Mette Hjort/Sue Laver (eds.), Emotion and the Arts, Oxford et al. 1997, 20–34.

Mason, David, Video Games, Theatre, and the Paradox of Fiction, The Journal of Popular Culture 47:6 (2014), 1109–1121.

Matravers, Derek, The Paradox of Fiction. The Report Versus the Perceptual Model, in: Mette Hjort/Sue Laver (eds.), Emotion and the Arts, Oxford et al. 1997, 78–92.

Matravers, Derek, Fiction and Narration, Oxford 2014.

Mellmann, Katja, Literatur als emotionale Attrappe. Eine evolutionspsychologische Lösung des »paradox of fiction«, in: Uta Klein/K.M./Steffanie Metzger (eds.), Heuristiken der Literaturwissenschaft. Disziplinexterne Perspektiven auf Literatur, Paderborn 2006, 145–166.

Mellmann, Katja, Biologische Ansätze zum Verhältnis von Literatur und Emotion, Journal of Literary Theory 1:2 (2007), 357–375.

Meskin, Aaron/Jonathan M. Weinberg, Emotions, Fiction, and Cognitive Architecture, British Journal of Aesthetics 45:1 (2003), 18–34.

Miall, David S., Feeling from the Perspective of the Empirical Study of Literature, Journal of Literary Theory 1:2 (2007), 377–393.

Moran, Richard, The Expression of Feeling in Imagination, The Philosophical Review 103:1 (1994), 75–106.

New, Christopher, Philosophy of Literature, London/New York 1999.

Nichols, Shaun, Imagining and Believing. The Promise of a Single Code, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62:2 (2004), 130–139.

Nichols, Shaun/Stephen P. Stich, A Cognitive Theory of Pretense, Cognition 74:2 (2000), 115–147.

Nichols, Shaun/Stephen P. Stich, Mindreading. An Integrated Account of Pretence, Self-Awareness, and Understanding Other Minds, Oxford et al. 2003.

Putnam, Hilary, The Meaning of ›Meaning‹ [1975], in: H.P., Mind, Language and Reality. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2, Cambridge et al. 1975, 215–271.

Putnam, Hilary,Representation and Reality, Cambridge, MA 1988.

Radford, Colin/Michael Weston, How Can We Be Moved by the Fate of Anna Karenina?, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 49 (1975), 67–93.

Reisenzein, Rainer, Denken und Emotionen, in: Joachim Funke/Peter A. French (eds.), Handbuch der Allgemeinen Psychologie, Göttingen et al. 2006, 475–484.

Reisenzein, Rainer, Emotions as Metarepresentational States of Mind. Naturalizing the Belief-Desire Theory of Emotion, Cognitive Systems Research 10:1 (2009), 6–20.

Reisenzein, Rainer, Fantasiegefühle in der kognitiv-motivationalen Theorie der Emotion, in: Sandra Poppe (ed.), Emotionen in Literatur und Film, Würzburg 2012, 31–63.

Robinson, Jenefer, Emotion and the Understanding of Narrative, in: Garry L. Hagberg/Walter Jost (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Literature, Malden, MA et al. 2004, 71–92.

Rott, Hans, Negative Doxastic Voluntarism and the Ethics of Believe, in: Patrick Nerhot (ed.), Truth and Judgement, Milano 2008, 27–49.

Rott, Hans, Von der Mühe, nicht zu glauben. Fiktionale Texte und negativer doxastischer Voluntarismus, in: Eva-Maria Konrad et al. (eds.), Fiktion, Wahrheit, Interpretation. Philologische und philosophische Perspektiven, Münster 2013, 65–106.

Rott, Hans, Negative Doxastic Voluntarism and the Concept of Belief, Synthese 194:8 (2017), 2695–2720.

Searle, John R., The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse, New Literary History 6:2 (1974–1975), 319–332.

Schroeder, Timothy/Carl Matheson, Imagination and Emotion, in: Shaun Nichols (ed.), The Architecture of the Imagination. New Essays on Pretence, Possibility and Fiction, Oxford 2006, 19–40.

Scruton, Roger, Feeling Fictions, in: Garry L. Hagberg/Walter Jost (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Literature, Malden, MA et al. 2004, 93–105.

Stecker, Robert, Should We Still Care about the Paradox of Fiction?, British Journal of Aesthetics 51:3 (2011), 295–308.

Stock, Kathleen, Physiological Evidence and the Paradox of Fiction, in: Gregory Currie et al. (eds.), Aesthetics and the Sciences of Mind, Oxford 2014, 205–226.

Vendrell Ferran, Íngrid, Das Paradoxon der Fiktion, in: Tobias Klauk/Tilmann Köppe (eds.), Fiktionalität. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch, Berlin et al. 2014, 313–337.

Walton, Kendall L., Fearing Fictions, The Journal of Philosophy 75:1 (1978), 5–27.

Walton, Kendall L., Mimesis as Make-Believe. On the Foundations of the Representational Arts, Cambridge, MA 1990.

Walton, Kendall L., Spelunking, Simulation, and Slime. On Being Moved by Fiction, in: Mette Hjort/Sue Laver (eds.), Emotion and the Arts, Oxford et al. 1997, 37–49.

Yanal, Robert J., Paradoxes of Emotion and Fiction, University Park, PA 1999.

Zipfel, Frank, Fiktion, Fiktivität, Fiktionalität. Analysen zur Fiktion in der Literatur und zum Fiktionsbegriff in der Literaturwissenschaft, Berlin 2001.

Zipfel, Frank, Zeichen, Phantasie und Spiel als poetogene Strukturen literarischer Fiktion, in: Manfred Engel/Rüdiger Zymner (eds.), Anthropologie der Literatur. Poetogene Strukturen und ästhetisch-soziale Handlungsfelder, Paderborn 2004, 51–80.

Zipfel, Frank, Emotion und Fiktion. Zur Relevanz des Fiktions-Paradoxes für eine Theorie der Emotionalisierung in Literatur und Film, in: Sandra Poppe (ed.), Emotionen in Literatur und Film, Würzburg 2012, 127–153.

Zipfel, Frank, Imagination, fiktive Welten und fiktionale Wahrheit. Zu Theorien fiktionsspezifischer Rezeption von literarischen Texten, in: Eva-Maria Konrad et al. (eds.), Fiktion, Wahrheit, Interpretation. Philologische und philosophische Perspektiven, Münster 2013, 38–64.

2018-09-16

JLTonline ISSN 1862-8990

Copyright © by the author. All rights reserved.
This work may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given to the author and JLTonline.
For other permission, please contact JLTonline.

Copyright © 2007 – present JLTonline

Contact Webmaster