Getuigenis en engagement | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 113 Number 4
  • ISSN: 0002-5275
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1244

Abstract

Abstract

This article approaches the cognitive value of literary works from the perspective of the distinction between fiction and non-fiction. This examination takes as a starting point the philosophy of Peter Lamarque who bases the distinction between fiction and non-fiction on the intention of the author. I question this position from the perspective of the reader’s experience of a literary text. I argue that the distinction between fiction and non-fiction plays a major role in our appreciation of literary works, but that the intention of the author is not sufficient to account for it. In order to assess the relevance of the distinction between fiction and non-fiction in the reader’s experience of literary narratives, I introduce the notions of testimony and engagement. Testimony narratives are considered to be non-fiction, narratives of engagement are not. In analyzing some aspects of the stories (Primo Levi), (Jean-Paul Sartre) and (Mithu Sanyal), I show that testimony and engagement are both involved, however in different ways, in the reader’s appreciation of these stories.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2021.4.009.COOL
2022-01-01
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/00025275/113/4/09_ANTW2021.4_COOL.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2021.4.009.COOL&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. AdornoTh.W.(1981)Engagement, in: Noten zur Literatur. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 409-430.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Agamben, G.(2018)Wat er overblijft van Auschwitz. De getuige en het archief. (Homo sacer III), vertaald door Willy Hemelrijk. Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verbum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BarthesR.(1984)L’effet du réel, in: Le Bruissement de la langue. Paris: Seuil, pp. 179-187.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blanchot. M.(1949)La littérature et le droit à la mort, in: La Part du feu. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 291-331.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CarrolN.(1997)The Film of Presumptive Assertion, in: R.Allen en M.Smith (red.) Film Theory and Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DerridaJ.(1996)Demeure. Fiction et témoignage, in: MichelLisse (red.) Passions de la littérature, Paris: Éditions Galilée, pp. 13-73.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. LamarqueP. en OlsenS.(2003)Literature, Truth and Philosophy, in: E.John and D.McIver Lopes (red.) The Philosophy of Literature: Contemporary and Classic Readings – An Anthology, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 341-354.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. LamarqueP.(2009)Truth, in: The Philosophy of Literature. Malden (USA) / Oxford (UK): Blackwell Publishing, pp. 220-254.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LamarqueP.(2014)Fiction and the Nonfiction Novel, in: The Opacity of Narrative. London – New York: Roman & Littlefield International, pp. 83-104.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Levi, P. (1998 [1997]). Conversations et entretiens 1963-1987, traduit de l’italien et de l’anglais par T. Lager, de l’allemand par D. Autrand. Paris: Robert Laffont.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Levi, P.(1999)De getuigenissen. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. LiskaV.(2004)Was weiss die Literatur? Das Wissen der Sirenen: Adorno, Blanchot, Sloterdijk (- und Kafka), KulturPoetik4/1, pp. 1-18.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Mesnard, Ph.(2011)Primo Levi. Le passage d’un témoin. Millau: Fayard.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. NussbaumM.(2003)Finely Aware and Richly Responsible, in: E.John and D.McIver Lopes (red.) The Philosophy of Literature: Contemporary and Classic Readings – An Anthology, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 329-340.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. RicoeurP.(1979)The Function of Fiction in Shaping Reality, Man and World12, pp. 123- 41.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. RicoeurP.(1991)Tekst en betekenis. Opstellen over de interpretatie van literatuur. Baarn: Ambo.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. SanyalM.(2021)Identitti. München: Carl Hanser Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SartreJ.-P.(1976)Walging, vertaald door Marianne Kuik. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij De Arbeiderspers.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SartreJ.-P.(1948)Qu’est-ce que la littérature?In: Situations II. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 55-330.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. StolnitzJ.(2003)On the Cognitive Triviality of Art, in: E.John and D.McIver Lopes (red.), The Philosophy of Literature: Contemporary and Classic Readings – An Anthology, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 317-323.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. ToddJ.(2019)The Paradox of Fact from Fiction. What Fiction Can and Can’t Tell Us About the Real World, Aesthetic Investigations3, 28-46.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Watt, I.(1957)The Rise of the Novel. London: Chato and Windus.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. WilsonC.(2003)Literature and Knowledge, in: E.John and D.McIver Lopes (red.), The Philosophy of Literature: Contemporary and Classic Readings – An Anthology, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 324-328.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. WynantsCh.(2020)When Fact Is Fiction: Documentary Art in the Post-Truth Era. Amsterdam: Valiz.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2021.4.009.COOL
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error