Narrative discourse : an essay in method
TL;DR: Cutler as mentioned in this paper presents a Translator's Preface Preface and Preface for English-to-Arabic Translating Translators (TSPT) with a preface by Jonathan Cutler.
Abstract: Foreword by Jonathan Cutler Translator's Preface PrefaceIntroduction 1. Order 2. Duration 3. Frequency 4. Mood 5. VoiceAfterword Bibliography Index
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The authors argued that critics are bad at understanding narrative form as something that takes time, and instead they try to convert narrative into a timeless structure, or condense stories into a few scenes that convey the meaning of the whole.
Abstract: <341> Seventeen years ago, in an essay titled “Formalism and Time,” Catherine Gallagher argued that critics are bad at understanding narrative form as something that takes time.1 Instead we try to convert narrative into a timeless structure, or condense stories into a few scenes that convey the meaning of the whole. Whether it’s Jane Eyre walking back and forth on the third story of Thornfield, or Gabriel Conroy watching the snow fall outside his window, we understand fiction by identifying moments of heightened significance. These could be epiphanies or anticlimaxes. In Gallagher’s view the value of these scenes depends less on their specific content than on their rhetorical function, which is to reconcile time with timelessness. She sees critical tradition as deeply shaped by Walter Pater’s dream of cheating death by embracing ephemerality in the form of a single “hard gem-like” moment that, paradoxically, becomes eternal.2 A moving aspiration, but also, according to Gallagher, a way of undervaluing the dailiness of life, and long Victorian novels. This would be an interesting argument under any circumstances, but it’s a particularly remarkable thing for Gallagher to have written in the year 2000, when she was also collaborating with Stephen Greenblatt on a theoretical defense of New Historicism. After all, the New Historicist critic does for historical time exactly what Gallagher’s Paterian critic does for narrative—that is, condense it into a brief scene (an anecdote) that
7 citations
29 Jun 2011
TL;DR: Keys to the story generation with focalization are the use of distinctive knowledge and the concept of focalizing factors for each focal character in the story.
Abstract: Focalization, perspective-taking in stories, restricts narrative information to the eye of a character, allowing the audience limited perception for a particular effect. This paper briefly describes the work in narrative theories on focalization and our computational model of focalization in narrative generation using an Artificial Intelligence planning-based approach. Keys to the story generation with focalization are the use of distinctive knowledge (i.e., distinctive plan libraries) and the concept of focalizing factors for each focal character in the story.
7 citations
Cites background or methods from "Narrative discourse : an essay in m..."
...(experience) incrementally as the story unfolds from new vantage points [5]....
[...]
...In particular, Genette [5] distinguishes focalization from narration through the distinction between ―who sees?‖ and ―who speaks?‖ The use of focalization as an effective device to enhance story is often found in literary works and films, portraying specific events through the eyes of a particular...
[...]
...Instead, the story author delivers parts of the story with emphasis on specific events, termed as focalization by Genette [5]....
[...]
...Focalization has been extensively researched by narratologists [2][5][6][7][13][14]....
[...]
...Internal focalization, furthermore, can be refined into three types as suggested by Genette [5]: (1) fixed in which everything is told from the point of view of a particular character in the story, (2) variable in which story events are told from the point of view of variable characters in the story from character to character consecutively, and (3) multiple in which story is presented from the different viewpoints of multiple characters in the story respectively....
[...]
01 Jan 2015
TL;DR: The authors examine the ways that the narrative of the Gospel of Matthew functions rhetorically, within the context of a broader first-century Jewish-Christian discourse of identity, to construct insider identity in relation to non-Jews.
Abstract: This thesis examines some of the ways that the narrative of the Gospel of Matthew functions rhetorically, within the context of a broader first-century Jewish-Christian discourse of identity, to construct insider identity—i.e., to construct disciples—in relation to non-Jews. The focus, in particular, is on two key tensions regarding non-Jews in the narrative context of the gospel: 1) the tension between the negative stereotypical "Gentiles" of Jesus discourse and the very positive portrayal of some Gentile characters in the narrative; and 2) the tension between the two commissions of Jesus to his disciples, between his first command to "go nowhere among the Gentiles" (Matt 10:5) and his final command to "make disciples of all nations" (28:19). I argue, through my analysis of these two tensions within the narrative context of the gospel, that the Gospel of Matthew’s narration of the life of Jesus functions for the narrative’s implied reader as more (though certainly not less) than an etiology of Gentile inclusion; beyond explaining and defending the presence of non-Jews within the ekklēsia, the gospel itself forges an insider identity that includes people of ta ethnē, and it does this in part by negotiating the categories of ethnikoi/ethnē and mathētai/ekklēsia in relation to each other.
7 citations
TL;DR: The authors compare two novel forms that are separated by more than 250 years: Henry Fielding's Joseph Andrews, published in 1742, and Philippa Burne's hypertext fiction "24 Hours with Someone You Know," copyrighted in 1996.
Abstract: This essay compares two novel forms that are separated by more than 250 years: Henry Fielding's Joseph Andrews, published in 1742, and Philippa Burne's hypertext fiction "24 Hours with Someone You Know," copyrighted in 1996. Using narratological, pragmatic, and cognitive tools and theories, the confrontation of the two distant texts aims to highlight that while "the ethics of the telling" is congruent with the "ethics of the told" in both stories (), the texts differ in the pragmatic positioning of their audiences and the freedom that they seem to grant readers, thereby emphasizing the evolution of the author-reader relationship across centuries and media. The article shows to what extent digital fiction can be said to invite the active participation of the reader via the computer mouse/cursor. Meanwhile it exposes a paradox: although Joseph Andrews is a highly author-controlled narrative, guiding the reader's ethical interpretation of what is told, it seems to leave more "space" for the actual reader, while Burne's participatory framework, conveyed through a second-person pronoun that blurs the line between implied and actual audience, requires some "forced participation" () via the "virtual performatives" that hyperlinks represent. Finally, the specificity of "you" digital fiction as opposed to its print counterpart is theorized in two contrasted models of audience.
7 citations
References
More filters
Book•
01 Jan 1954
TL;DR: Deuxieme tirage de cet essai critique de Georges Blin sur Stendhal, publie aux editions Jose Corti en 1954 as mentioned in this paper, et les images, une description a completer, une bibliotheque
Abstract: Deuxieme tirage de cet essai critique de Georges Blin sur Stendhal, publie aux editions Jose Corti en 1954.Deux images, une description a completer, une bibliotheque.
22 citations