"No feature of the novel seems to be more obvious and yet easily ignored than its fictionality." - Gallagher, "Rise of Fictionality", pg. 336.
First, a obvious observation, regarding the term "fictionality": Gallagher's paper does the term a great injustice, because at no point is the term clearly and concisely defined. In many ways, it feels like we're reading abstractions without any need for abstraction. Gallagher's article/chapter (not sure which) doesn't necessarily or fundamentally (in my humble opinion) offer a truly sound argument as to the "discovery" of "fictionality".
There are several arguments that are made, including one particularly troubling to me: writers turned to "fictionality" in order to avoid prosecution (My concern about this statement relies fundamentally on the fact that very clear and obvious fictions existed to the world far before any author ever turned to this sort of thought. I also believe it would be wrong to assume that an understanding of "fictionality" began to emerge in relationship to the legal system, though resting on such a claim may certainly have been beneficial to the budding writer). It seems like every argument that is made fundamentally ignore what appears to be an obvious observation: that fiction has always existed; that it is part of what fundamentally makes us human; and that fiction has evolved and grown with us through the course of human development. The great novelist, EM Forster made this observation very clear in his lectures on the novel: "...we cannot consider fiction by period...Another image suits our powers: that of all the novelists writing their novels at once" (Forster, Aspects of the Novel, Hardcourt [1985], pg 14). Forster's observation, I think highlights a rather ignored fact: that creative inspiration, and fiction, regardless of era, isn't fundamentally different. All writers work to produce craft. Understandings may change, but the simple act of creation is the same. Everyone, regardless of time, era, of influence, must undergo the single most challenging exercise: to create art.
Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of Gallagher's article is her take on Fielding's work. One particular observation that is interesting is the observation that "Novels seek to suspend reader's disbelief...Disbelief is thus the condition of fictionality..." (346). The fact that Fielding intentionally makes it clear that his work is to be taken as a fiction, rather than as truth, is a compelling case for Gallagher's thesis. That being said, I'm not convinced, as Gallagher also points to the arrival of Don Quixote and other early novels as having the necessary requirements to satisfy an understanding of "fictionality". Of course her basis for her claim that 18th century novels discovered "fiction" relies on a notion that continues to propagate English exceptionalism: "England's early secularism, scientific enlightenment, empiricism, capitalism, materialism, national consolidation, and the rise of the middle class have all been named as constituents of the general background against which the novel emerged" (345).
Perhaps another area where I find her argument to be lacking is Gallagher's disregard of the play. While she makes note of poetry underlining and using a certain role for fiction, the fact that she doesn't even bother to consider the rich tradition of English, Greek, and Roman theatre is troubling. It would be easy for a critic to invoke the work of Shakespeare here to counter her claim: works like A Midsummers Night's Dream or The Taming of the Shrew clearly invoke allegory and the use of "fictionality" in order to achieve success. Now I know that Gallagher's response would probably indicate that most of these plays use fairy tale like creatures or the devil (in the case of Marlowe's Doctor Faustus) and therefore already indicate a different sort of understanding of the term fiction (one that doesn't remotely approach a sense of realism that would become adapted for the 18th century novelist), but what about a work from the tragedies, like Romeo and Juliet or Julius Caesar? Don't both of these incorporate elements of realism that would indicate the believability of the events the transpire on the page? In the case of Julius Caesar, it should be obvious because the work is based on a historical event, even though the work itself in a fictitious reimagining of the events that transpired. Even if we were to drop Julius Caesar from consideration, Othello or Hamlet would suffice to disprove Gallagher's argument just as well.
I think it's fairly obvious that I find Gallagher's article / chapter (whatever it is) to be incredibly problematic, and I've done a fair amount of basic criticism here. I do want to make it clear that I think her article, overall, does offer some really wonderful information and observations (such as the sections regarding Fielding, or readers interaction with the novel), but I strongly disagree with the premise of her paper. I am glad that it was well written and provided a delightful read, but I think she might need to reconsider her position.
First, a obvious observation, regarding the term "fictionality": Gallagher's paper does the term a great injustice, because at no point is the term clearly and concisely defined. In many ways, it feels like we're reading abstractions without any need for abstraction. Gallagher's article/chapter (not sure which) doesn't necessarily or fundamentally (in my humble opinion) offer a truly sound argument as to the "discovery" of "fictionality".
There are several arguments that are made, including one particularly troubling to me: writers turned to "fictionality" in order to avoid prosecution (My concern about this statement relies fundamentally on the fact that very clear and obvious fictions existed to the world far before any author ever turned to this sort of thought. I also believe it would be wrong to assume that an understanding of "fictionality" began to emerge in relationship to the legal system, though resting on such a claim may certainly have been beneficial to the budding writer). It seems like every argument that is made fundamentally ignore what appears to be an obvious observation: that fiction has always existed; that it is part of what fundamentally makes us human; and that fiction has evolved and grown with us through the course of human development. The great novelist, EM Forster made this observation very clear in his lectures on the novel: "...we cannot consider fiction by period...Another image suits our powers: that of all the novelists writing their novels at once" (Forster, Aspects of the Novel, Hardcourt [1985], pg 14). Forster's observation, I think highlights a rather ignored fact: that creative inspiration, and fiction, regardless of era, isn't fundamentally different. All writers work to produce craft. Understandings may change, but the simple act of creation is the same. Everyone, regardless of time, era, of influence, must undergo the single most challenging exercise: to create art.
Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of Gallagher's article is her take on Fielding's work. One particular observation that is interesting is the observation that "Novels seek to suspend reader's disbelief...Disbelief is thus the condition of fictionality..." (346). The fact that Fielding intentionally makes it clear that his work is to be taken as a fiction, rather than as truth, is a compelling case for Gallagher's thesis. That being said, I'm not convinced, as Gallagher also points to the arrival of Don Quixote and other early novels as having the necessary requirements to satisfy an understanding of "fictionality". Of course her basis for her claim that 18th century novels discovered "fiction" relies on a notion that continues to propagate English exceptionalism: "England's early secularism, scientific enlightenment, empiricism, capitalism, materialism, national consolidation, and the rise of the middle class have all been named as constituents of the general background against which the novel emerged" (345).
Perhaps another area where I find her argument to be lacking is Gallagher's disregard of the play. While she makes note of poetry underlining and using a certain role for fiction, the fact that she doesn't even bother to consider the rich tradition of English, Greek, and Roman theatre is troubling. It would be easy for a critic to invoke the work of Shakespeare here to counter her claim: works like A Midsummers Night's Dream or The Taming of the Shrew clearly invoke allegory and the use of "fictionality" in order to achieve success. Now I know that Gallagher's response would probably indicate that most of these plays use fairy tale like creatures or the devil (in the case of Marlowe's Doctor Faustus) and therefore already indicate a different sort of understanding of the term fiction (one that doesn't remotely approach a sense of realism that would become adapted for the 18th century novelist), but what about a work from the tragedies, like Romeo and Juliet or Julius Caesar? Don't both of these incorporate elements of realism that would indicate the believability of the events the transpire on the page? In the case of Julius Caesar, it should be obvious because the work is based on a historical event, even though the work itself in a fictitious reimagining of the events that transpired. Even if we were to drop Julius Caesar from consideration, Othello or Hamlet would suffice to disprove Gallagher's argument just as well.
I think it's fairly obvious that I find Gallagher's article / chapter (whatever it is) to be incredibly problematic, and I've done a fair amount of basic criticism here. I do want to make it clear that I think her article, overall, does offer some really wonderful information and observations (such as the sections regarding Fielding, or readers interaction with the novel), but I strongly disagree with the premise of her paper. I am glad that it was well written and provided a delightful read, but I think she might need to reconsider her position.
Comments
Post a Comment