Author
Lionel Duisit
Bio: Lionel Duisit is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Meaning (philosophy of language) & Tragedy. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 3 publications receiving 1219 citations.
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: In the literature, there is a variety of genres, each of which branches out into a wide variety of media, as if all substances could be relied upon to accommodate man's stories as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: of all, there is a prodigious variety of genres, each of which branches out into a variety of media, as if all substances could be relied upon to accommodate man's stories. Among the vehicles of narrative are articulated language, whether oral or written, pictures, still or moving, gestures, and an ordered mixture of all those substances; narrative is present in myth, legend, fables, tales, short stories, epics, history, tragedy, drame [suspense drama], comedy, pantomime, paintings (in Santa Ursula by Carpaccio, for instance), stained-glass windows, movies, local news, conversation. Moreover, in this infinite variety of forms, it is present at all times, in all places, in all societies; indeed narrative starts with the very history of mankind; there is not, there has never been anywhere, any people without narrative; all classes, all human groups, have their stories, and very often those stories are enjoyed by men of different and even opposite cultural backgrounds: narrative remains largely unconcerned with good or bad literature. Like life itself, it is there, international, transhistorical, transcultural. Are we to infer from such universality that narrative is insignificant? Is it so common that we can say nothing about it, except for a modest description of a few highly particularized species, as literary history sometimes does? Indeed how are we to control such variety, how are we to justify our right to distinguish or recognize them? How can we tell the novel from the short story, the tale from the myth, suspense drama from tragedy (it has been done a thousand times) without reference to a common model? Any critical attempt to describe even the most specific, the most historically oriented narrative form implies such a model. It is, therefore, understandable that thinkers as early as Aristotle should have concerned themselves with the study of narrative forms, and not have abandoned all ambition to talk about them, giving
1,260Â citations
••
TL;DR: A special issue of New Literary History as mentioned in this paper is devoted to Renaissance literature as it relates to contemporary theory, a problem at once theoretical and historical, where the focus is on the relationship between theory and history.
Abstract: HE SPECIAL ISSUE which New Literary History, after its exploration of medieval literature, devotes to Renaissance literature as it relates to contemporary theory presents, in its very wording, a problem at once theoretical and historical. Indeed, by attaching to the notion of literature the conventional denomination of a period in European history,1 the editor of the journal queries the epistemological notion of theory on two grounds. First on its historicity: What separates contemporary from Renaissance literature if not two or three centuries of history? What could this separation indicate if not the assignment of a truth value, or at least an operational explanatory value, to theory on account of its being contemporary? Would not such an assumption allow chronology to become a key factor in giving contemporary theory a privileged status over any other theory of the past? And if the wording itself introduces into the formulation of the leading theme an interrogative shade of meaning, then one of the questions raised will indeed be that of the operational sway which theory holds over its object as a result of its contemporaneous quality. Expressed simply, the question is: What would be the relations between theory and history, if by theory one means a systematic set of principles and methodological processes aimed at a complete, exhaustive explanation of the objects to which it is applied?2 To give such a definition of theory-the broadest possible definition-leads naturally to the second question which seems to fall within the purview of New Literary History's research project: What is the meaning and the scope of the phrase contemporary theory? What theory does it refer to? Will it fit under exact sciences, social sciences, human sciences? For instance, cosmological, physical, biological, psychological, psychoanalytical, linguistic, or semiological theories-all are dis-
8Â citations
••
TL;DR: The relationship between literature and psychoanalysis has already been abundantly documented, and yet there seems to be plenty more to say about it, since fresh testimony is continually being called to the witness stand.
Abstract: T iHE QUESTION of the relationship between literature and psychoanalysis has already been abundantly documented, and yet there seems to be plenty more to say about it, since fresh testimony is continually being called to the witness stand. Whether it be a mere coincidence or a meaningful correlation, the literatureand-psychoanalysis theme has never received such lavish attention as it does today precisely at a time when another surreptitious theme keeps cropping up with strange obstinacy: the theme of the death of literature. While some will mourn over literature's demise, others, in spite of their desire to be seen as avant-garde participants in this battle (indeed, one wonders what battle!), wish it would come about sooner. No doubt they look forward to its corpse serving as fertilizer for a new culture. In this respect, one could argue that psychoanalysis may be one of the signs of the imminent death of a senescent culture characterized among other things by the decay of literature, which, to put it optimistically, may herald the appearance of the yet-unborn thoughts on which tomorrow's culture may be founded. For that matter, one can argue just as easily that the death of literature would inevitably bring in its wake the death of psychoanalysis, for despite the profound changes the latter has wrought in the movement of ideas, it belongs to the same culture. While we cannot endorse such judgments without further examination, neither is it possible to dismiss as purely fortuitous this simultaneous emergence of studies bringing psychoanalysis to bear on literature, and of this peculiar sense of literature's decline-be it temporary or definitive. Rather than write on the death of literature, since we are not called upon to testify to its decease, let us consider that a literary mutation has taken place, leaving it for the future to decide whether or not it has been fatal to literature. This mutation is contemporaneous with the birth and development of psychoanalysis. Furthermore, it should be noted that the great majority of literary works which have been the
5Â citations
Cited by
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this paper, a theory of human communication based on a conception of persons as homo narrans is proposed, and the viability of the narrative paradigm and its attendant notions of reason and rationality are demonstrated through an extended analysis of key aspects of the current nuclear war controversy and a brief application to The Epic of Gilgamesh.
Abstract: This essay proposes a theory of human communication based on a conception of persons as homo narrans. It compares and contrasts this view with the traditional rational perspective on symbolic interaction. The viability of the narrative paradigm and its attendant notions of reason and rationality are demonstrated through an extended analysis of key aspects of the current nuclear war controversy and a brief application to The Epic of Gilgamesh. The narrative paradigm synthesizes two strands in rhetorical theory: the argumentative, persuasive theme and the literary, aesthetic theme.
1,546Â citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors use concepts from narrative theory to create a framework for analyzing structural features in narrative data, which are useful for description, but explanatory process theories must be based on deeper structures that are not directly observable.
Abstract: Narrative is especially relevant to the analysis of organizational processes because people do not simply tell stories—they enact them. Narrative data have surface features that are useful for description, but explanatory process theories must be based on deeper structures that are not directly observable. To address this problem and to facilitate better process theory, in this article I use concepts from narrative theory to create a framework for analyzing structural features in narrative data.
1,225Â citations
••
TL;DR: The authors argue for systematic textual analysis as a part of discourse analysis, and an attempt to stimulate debate on this issue between different approaches to discourse analysis has been made in the past few years.
Abstract: This paper is an argument for systematic textual analysis as a part of discourse analysis, and an attempt to stimulate debate on this issue between different approaches to discourse analysis. Two t...
957Â citations
••
TL;DR: This paper presents narrative as a framework for understanding the subject and interview data in qualitative research and examples of narrative approaches are offered, narrative analyses are contrasted with other kinds of qualitative analyses, and truth in narratives is considered.
Abstract: There is a new attention across disciplines to narrative knowing--the impulse to story life events into order and meaning. In this paper, narrative is presented as a framework for understanding the subject and interview data in qualitative research. Examples of narrative approaches are offered, narrative analyses are contrasted with other kinds of qualitative analyses, and truth in narratives is considered.
854Â citations