Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
≥
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York
Tom Kindt/Hans-Harald Müller
≥
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York
Translated by Alastair Matthews
Kindt, Tom.
The implied author : concept and controversy / by Tom Kindt,
Hans-Harald Müller.
p. cm. ⫺ (Narratologia)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN-13: 978-3-11-018948-3 (alk. paper)
ISBN-10: 3-11-018948-8 (alk. paper)
1. Implied author (Rhetoric) I. Müller, Hans-Harald, 1943⫺
II. Title.
PN213.K56 2006
808.3⫺dc22
200602757
ISBN-13: 978-3-11-018948-3
ISBN-10: 3-11-018948-8
ISSN 1612-8427
쑔 Copyright 2006 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this
book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, includ-
ing photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin
Contents
3 Exit IA?
Possibilities for Explicating the Implied Author ...................... 151
This book examines the concept of the implied author, a term that
rose to such prominence in the wake of Wayne C. Booth’s 1961
Rhetoric of Fiction that it is still employed in the study of literature
in virtually all languages today, despite the fact that it began to meet
with fundamental criticism soon after Booth’s study first appeared.
One might well ask what purpose is served by devoting an entire
book to the history of such a concept and ending it by suggesting a
new way of using it in future. It might be objected, for example, that
there is no need for a critical study of the concept to proceed his-
torically, as ours does, by reconstructing the different ways in which
it has been used when a far less laborious alternative suggests itself.
Perhaps, that is to say, an intuitive prior understanding of what is
meant by the terms ‘implied’ and ‘author’ tells us enough about the
kinds of objects to which they can refer to show that combining
them can result only in an incongruous chimera. The expression
‘author’, proponents of this view would argue, should under no cir-
cumstances be applied to objects of the kind that can be ‘implied’ in
something else, for such objects are clearly not linguistic or abstract
in nature. The ultimate aim of this kind of argument is to reject use
of the modifier ‘implied’ with the general term ‘author’ a priori as a
fatal categorial error. But, well-founded as this attack on the use of
the implied author concept may be, there would be little to be
gained by taking such a line in the context of the present study. At-
tention has been drawn to the anomalies of the concept ever since it
was introduced, but never with any effect, so it seems unlikely that
anything would be achieved by showing that it is inappropriate and
analytically vacuous here either. Users of the concept have simply
not concerned themselves with its anomalies, and, however disputed
it may be, its critics have been unable to prevent it from becoming
2 History of Criticism and the History of a Concept
which the concept was introduced, and then to examine the re-
sponses it has met with in the course of subsequent developments.
This reconstruction of the concept’s history prepares the ground for
the explication of the implied author with which the second part of
the book is concerned. The historical study, in other words, pro-
vides the background against which we put forward a more precise
way of understanding the implied author concept, without thereby
departing completely from the ways in which it has previously been
used.4
In addition to pursuing these aims, we hope that the book will
give a compelling demonstration of why the historical development
of terms and concepts should be given proper attention in the histo-
riography of scholarly activity. We hope to show that historical
studies of the kind presented here can provide profound insights
into the role of individual concepts in cultural studies, and also, on a
larger scale, shed light on the construction and changing nature of
the theoretical frameworks that accommodate them. Put simply,
such an approach informs our understanding of the function of
terms and theories in the text-based disciplines.5
The idea that theorists should always be critically aware of the
concepts on which their theories and programmes depend is not
new; Max Weber advocated such a position as early as the begin-
4 Quine (1951, 156) has described the process of explication as follows: ‘Any
word worth explicating has some contexts which, as wholes, are clear and
precise enough to be useful; and the purpose of explication is to preserve the
usage of these favored contexts while sharpening the usage of other contexts.
In order that a given definition be suitable for purposes of explication, there-
fore, what is required is not that the definiendum in its antecedent usage be
synonymous with the definiens, but just that each of these favored contexts of
the definiendum, taken as a whole in its antecedent usage, be synonymous
with the corresponding context of the definiens.’ On explication, see also
Carnap (1950), Quine (1960), Robinson (1968), Pawáowski (1980), Danne-
berg (1989b, 1991), Müller (1989), Fricke (2000), and Rey (2000).
5 Weitz (1977) provides a remarkably clear introduction to the function of
open concepts in the humanities; regrettably, though, this work is ignored by
literary theorists in the United States today. For a detailed analysis of Weitz’
position, see Carroll (2000b).
4 History of Criticism and the History of a Concept
9 See, with references to further reading, Kindt and Müller (2005, 339–41). See
also Margolin (1981) on different kinds of vagueness of critical concepts.
10 See Danneberg (1989a).
11 One example is discussed in Müller (1991b).
12 Compare Bal (2002, 6): ‘In the wake of women’s studies, cultural studies
has, in my view, been responsible for the absolutely indispensable opening
up of the disciplinary structure of the humanities. By challenging methodo-
6 History of Criticism and the History of a Concept
logical dogma, and elitist prejudice and value judgment, cultural studies has
been uniquely instrumental in at least making the academic community aware
of the conservative nature of its endeavours, if not everywhere forcing it to
change.’
13 Bal (2002, 5) describes the main thesis of Travelling Concepts as follows:
‘The thesis on which this book is based, and of which it is both an elaboration
and a defence, is extremely simple: namely, interdisciplinarity in the humani-
ties, necessary, exciting, serious must seek its heuristic and methodological
basis in concepts rather than in methods’ (emphasis in original).
14 As, for example, in Bal (2002, 11): ‘While groping to define, provisionally
and partly, what a particular concept may mean, we gain insight into what it
can do’ (emphasis in original).
15 This is the case in Bal (2002, 33–34): ‘In a somewhat grandiose interpreta-
tion, one could say that a good concept founds a scientific discipline or field.
Thus, to anticipate the subsequent specialized discussions in this book, one
might claim that the articulation of the concept of narrativity within the hu-
manities and the social sciences founded the discipline of narratology. This is
an inter-discipline precisely because it defines an object, a discursive modal-
ity, which is active in many different fields.’
16 A one-sided understanding of Foucault has produced a way of thinking in
which disciplines are frequently treated as social systems that defend their
boundaries as privileges and hold back creative research. Recent historical
studies have repeatedly demonstrated that this is, to put it mildly, an unac-
ceptable generalization that obscures the actual historical situation in the de-
velopment of scholarship. See, for example, Anderson and Valente (2002, 2):
‘Put most succinctly: if the tendency is now to associate interdisciplinarity
with freedom, and disciplinarity with constraint, a closer look at the history
of these disciplines shows that the dialectics of agency and determinism, cur-
rently distributed across the disciplinarity/interdisciplinarity divide, was at
the heart of disciplinary formation itself.’ See also Anderson and Valente
(2002, 4): ‘It becomes evident, then, that disciplinarity was always interdisci-
plinary.’
Introduction 7
17 This is the case with respect to the rhetorical turn in Thompson Klein (1996,
68); for criticism of this position, see Veit-Brause (2000, 15–29).
8 History of Criticism and the History of a Concept
sented in full below; for the present, it is sufficient to note that the
dominant tendency in use of the concept is to assume, though this is
rarely stated explicitly, that we can use it to arrive at the meaning of
a literary text without leaving the level of description and without
setting out a theory and methodology for working out what (or who)
the implied author actually is in any given case.
We bring the second chapter of our study to a close by consider-
ing a series of concepts that have been suggested as alternatives to
the implied author. Even if they do not retain the term ‘implied au-
thor’, they nonetheless preserve certain key aspects that lie at the
heart of the concept. There are several reasons why alternative con-
cepts of this kind have been introduced. For a start, Booth’s implied
author has met with a not inconsiderable amount of criticism and
acquired a problematic legacy that some writers have sought to
sidestep by giving the concept a new name. Others have been un-
happy with its connotations; some, for example, believe that the
implied author as Booth understood it was still too intentionalistic,
that it bore too many traces of a real author who, because implied,
was still present in the text. It was thought that choosing an alterna-
tive term would help to rectify this shortcoming. Finally, the 1970s
saw a reorientation of literary theory in the light of which some felt
it necessary to lift Booth’s concept out of the rhetorical haze of the
1960s and update its image to fit the contemporary climate. One
way of doing this was to reformulate the concept in the context of
the new literary theories that were appearing, such as reception the-
ory or the aesthetics of reception, or analyses of literary communi-
cation.
Our study does not consider the motives behind the introduction
of new names for the implied author in further detail. Instead, we
confine ourselves to taking a closer look at the three alternative con-
cepts that are encountered most frequently: Umberto Eco’s Model
Author, Wolf Schmid’s abstract author, and Wolfgang Iser’s im-
plied reader. In doing so, we hope to determine for each alternative
(1) the theoretical context in which it was introduced, (2) what as-
pects of the implied author it abandoned and what aspects it re-
12 History of Criticism and the History of a Concept
tained, and finally (3) whether it managed to steer clear of the theo-
retical anomalies associated with the implied author concept itself.
Our treatment of the origins and history of the implied author
concept and some of the alternative names suggested for it results in
the following conclusion: the implied author is one of those con-
cepts—not, one suspects, all that uncommon in the humanities—
that have managed to survive intact despite their conceptual anoma-
lies and repeated calls that they be abolished or replaced. This state
of affairs should not, however, give rise to resignation; instead, we
believe, it strengthens the case for making a committed effort to ex-
plicate the concept. We would suggest that previous proposals for
abolishing or replacing the implied author have failed to appreciate
the true complexity of the problems posed by the concept. It is our
thesis that the implied author concept consists of components that
reflect correct intuitions in and of themselves, but conflict with one
another when combined together in a single concept. A sensible ex-
plication, therefore, must not try to explicate the concept as the
contradictory whole that it is, but should seek instead to elucidate its
individual components separately from one another in order to iden-
tify what, if any, possible explications for them emerge. The objec-
tive of this clarification process is to determine whether the indi-
vidually correct intuitions behind the components of the implied
author concept can be expressed in a way that does not result in a
contradiction. We subject two ways of modelling the implied author
to such an analysis: the idea that it be treated as a participant in
communication on the one hand, the idea that it be treated as a sub-
ject to which meaning can attributed on the other. Like most previ-
ous research, we come to the conclusion that the implied author
cannot be understood as a participant in communication. The treat-
ment of the implied author as a subject identified with a work’s
meaning, however, is much harder to assess—the context of inter-
pretation theory sees a whole range of possibilities unfold for bring-
ing the implied author into play as a subject in which meaning can
be seen to originate. Nonetheless, all ways of using the implied au-
thor in this manner do have something in common. They go further
than employing the concept to describe literary works—their ulti-
Introduction 13
Surprisingly little attention has been given to the origins of the im-
plied author in previous work on the concept. There are few studies
of any substance that fail to inform us that the concept was intro-
duced in a book entitled The Rhetoric of Fiction by an American
literary theorist called Wayne C. Booth.1 Rarely, however, is this
information accompanied by a more detailed treatment of the con-
text in which concept was put forward, its background, and the aims
attached to it.2 It can, perhaps, be fairly argued that the history of a
concept does not tell us how it should be defined and what use it
has, and this may go some way towards justifying the lack of a de-
tailed appraisal of the context in which the implied author origi-
nated. Even so, this omission has had a considerable effect on dis-
cussion of the implied author, particularly on the quality of the sug-
gestions put forward for retaining or rejecting, explicating or re-
placing it.
For this reason, we shall use the coming pages to present a care-
ful reconstruction of how the implied author came into being. This
reconstruction has two parts. In the first (1.1), we consider a crucial
influence on Booth’s approach to literary theory during the 1950s—
the views on metatheory and the academic study of literature held
by a group now known as the Chicago school of criticism.3 Some
general remarks on Booth’s plan for a rhetoric of epic texts provide
the starting point for the next stage of our analysis (1.2), in which
we undertake a detailed study of how Booth introduced the concept
of the implied author in his Rhetoric of Fiction of 1961 and how he
defended it, with minor modifications, in various pieces of work
over the forty years that preceded the writing of this book.
5 Ransom (1938, 454). Wellek (1956, 60) retrospectively explained the revolt
of the critics against the scholars as follows: ‘antiquarian scholarship domi-
nated American universities and colleges well into the twentieth century. It
has many achievements to its credit: editions, biographies, historical studies,
investigations of sources, and so on, but failed to live up on the ideal of hu-
mane learning as well as to the practical demands of teachers.’
20 The Origins of the Implied Author Concept
6 For general treatments of the history of the university in North America, see
Rudolph (1962), Graff (1987), and Brubacher and Rudy (1997).
7 See here Graff (1987, 27–28). The establishment of the seminar system in
German third-level education is described in vom Brocke (1999).
8 Geiger (1993, 236–37) summarizes the educational ideal behind the old-time
college as follows: ‘According to the accepted contemporary doctrines of fac-
ulty psychology, the chief aim of the college training was to instil “mental
discipline”—the capacity to learn. This capacity was to be mastered, it was
believed, by learning the classical languages, essentially by rote. Such learn-
ing was conducted and monitored through classroom recitations. Knowledge
under this system was not the end of education but the means.’
9 See Brubacher and Rudy (1997).
Poetics, Rhetoric, and Ethics 21
cism; they held the most important professorial chairs and ran the
leading journals.
Naturally, the more successful the literary critics were in assert-
ing their presence in the field, the clearer it became that there were
considerable differences among them regarding the specific shape
that they expected the new approach to literary works to take. In
many cases, the supporters of the critical turn were united simply by
their rejection of the study of literature as it was at the beginning of
the century, not by a shared concept of literary criticism.13 With the
New Criticism, it is true, a criticism-based programme became
dominant in literature departments soon after the end of the war, but
the New Critics were continually forced to defend their position
against the programmes of competing approaches, and they finally,
if slowly, began to lose their influence as a disciplinary force in the
1970s.14
ting the revolution into effect’.24 And Wimsatt, referring to the Chi-
cago critics in 1954, looked back with regret to the common ground
that Crane’s piece of two decades earlier had seemed to establish. In
retrospect, ‘History versus Criticism’ seemed to him to be a ‘revo-
lutionary document’ that made a decisive contribution to a ‘victory
for criticism’ in the academic study of literature.25
Only gradually, with the publications that emerged from the Chi-
cago group in the 1940s, did it become clear just how little the Chi-
cago critics shared with the New Critics and a host of other contem-
porary movements in the academic study of literature.26 The com-
mon ground consisted of little more than a shared desire to establish
literary criticism in academia. Once Critics and Criticism: Ancient
and Modern was published in 1952,27 there could no longer be any
reasonable doubt that Crane’s circle had its own very specific ideas
about how aesthetics was to replace historiography as the concep-
tual foundation on which the study of literature was based. The col-
lection of essays in Critics and Criticism made it unmistakably clear
that a distinctive programme had taken shape at the University of
Chicago.28 In the book, Crane, McKeon, Olson, Norman Maclean,
Bernard Weinberg, and William R. Keast set out the epistemologi-
cal foundations, object of study, and methodological procedures that
they felt should be adopted in the academic study of literature. In
addition, many contributions to the collection sought to place the
programme behind it in a historical and contemporary context, to
relate it to how literature had been analysed in the past and to the
competing approaches of the present respectively.
Critics and Criticism was the Chicago school’s response to the
loss of standing experienced by the disciplines of the humanities
Metatheoretical Pluralism
29 Crane (1952a, 2); see also Sprinker (1985, 193). The term ‘Chicago Mani-
festo’ was first used by Johnson (1953a; 1953b). On this essay, see Crane
(1953b); on the idea of a Chicago manifesto itself, see Crane (1957, vi).
30 See Kindt and Müller (2005, 336–42) on the concept of the historiography of
academic scholarship on which the following discussion is based.
31 See Burke (1943).
32 Lohner (1967), for example, falls foul of this trap in his otherwise accom-
plished portrayal of the Chicago school. Burke himself cannot be accused of
making a similar mistake. The descriptions he suggested were based solely
on knowledge of Crane et al. (1942); the Chicago school’s work on the his-
tory and theory of the humanities did not appear until the late 1940s, the
1950s and 1960s (see, for example, Crane 1947/48, 1952a, McKeon 1952a,
and Olson 1952, 1966).
Poetics, Rhetoric, and Ethics 27
33 See Olson’s recollection of how Crane saw the humanities around 1935; he
says that Crane ‘felt, as I did, … that the theory of both literary history and
history in general must be more closely looked into; and that the present con-
dition of critical theory was deplorable’ (Olson 1984, 234).
34 Crane (1957, vi).
35 Crane (1952a, 4).
28 The Origins of the Implied Author Concept
ralism’ and ‘relativism’, and also between ‘pluralism’ and merely amiable tol-
erance of half-truths, bad reasonings, and preposterous interpretations.47
The efforts of the Chicago critics to encourage a more balanced re-
sponse to their metatheoretical positions on the study of literature,
however, met with little success.48
Aristotelian Criticism
The circle around Crane and McKeon during the 1930s and 1940s
was united not just in its treatment of the way the humanities oper-
ated but also in its efforts to develop its own approach to textual
analysis. Studies of textual genesis and exercises in textual criticism
had become the ends rather than the means for mainstream aca-
demics studying literature in North America at the beginning of the
twentieth century. The Chicago critics, on the other hand, argued
for a mode of literary analysis in which the questions posed and
methods followed were based on Aristotle’s philosophical works,
mainly the Poetics, but also other texts.49 The Chicago school did
not believe that the resultant reorientation of the study of literature
would show them the ‘right’ way of understanding literary texts.
Rather, in accordance with their ideas on the nature of their disci-
pline, they believed that adopting an Aristotelian view of literature
represented a ‘strictly pragmatic and nonexclusive commitment’.50
The Chicago critics justified the adoption of this theoretical pro-
gramme by arguing that making recourse to Aristotle allowed them
to develop a comprehensive framework for textual analysis, one that
could also be linked to many other areas in which theories were
being developed in the academic study of literature. In addition,
51 See Crane (1952a, 13), McKeon (1952a, 1952b), and Olson (1952, 1966).
52 Crane (1952a, 13–14).
Poetics, Rhetoric, and Ethics 33
vessels of poetry. The … critic thus employs what we might call a process of
narrowing down.53
The Chicago critics saw their concept of literature as a means of
guarding against the risk of treating literary texts in this way. If lit-
erature is conceived of as a class of objects rather than a form of
speech, they felt, critics will no longer be able to get away with fo-
cusing solely on how a certain kind of discourse is manifested in the
individual literary works they study. Instead, the Chicago critics
suggested, treating texts as objects means viewing them as artistic
wholes whose composition is governed by a principle that should be
elucidated by analysing their construction and component parts.
Thus, the Chicago critics used their definition of literature as the
basis on which they advocated a form of literary criticism that
would examine individual works in particular rather than literature
in general. For Crane, the Aristotelian orientation produced a shift
from a ‘criticism of poetry’ to a ‘criticism of poems’,54 for in his
eyes it led to an analysis of texts
which takes as its starting point the peculiar natures of artistic wholes their
writers were engaged in constructing and which attempts to explain and ap-
preciate their parts, and the relations these bear to one another, as poetically
necessary or desirable consequences of the writers’ commitment to certain
kinds of poetic structures and effects rather than others.55
The academic study of literature should, as the Chicago critics un-
derstood it, aim to examine literary works as concrete artistic
wholes, and should do so with the aim of identifying the elements,
structure, and functioning of such wholes. The Chicago school, in
other words, advocated the pursuit of historically appropriate recon-
structions of literary texts.
(2) Aristotelian thought also provided the basis for the meth-
odological ideas held by the representatives of the Chicago circle.
The Chicago critics were all agreed that the analysis of literary texts
should finally become an inductive rather than a deductive proce-
56 See Crane et al. (1942) for an early example of this; see also the remarks in
Burke (1943).
57 Brooks (1947).
58 Crane (1947/48, 245).
Poetics, Rhetoric, and Ethics 35
63 See Shereen (1988, 40), who writes that ‘neither the author nor the audience
are ignored; yet they are only considered as elements contributing to the
form’.
64 Crane (1953a, 57).
65 See also the comments in Corman (1994, 144). It is, however, not entirely
clear why the Chicago critics’ approach should follow, as Corman suggests,
from their decision to use the Aristotelian mimesis concept as a point of ori-
entation.
Poetics, Rhetoric, and Ethics 37
66 See Richter (1982) on the relationship between the first and second genera-
tions of the Chicago school. Booth (1982, 22–24) gives an overview of the
most prominent second- and third-generation supporters of the Chicago ap-
proach.
67 See the comments in Wellek (1956, 67), Webster (1979, 123), and Leitch
(1988, 80). Despite Lohner’s 1967 essay (Lohner 1967), the German-speak-
ing countries did not produce a comprehensive discussion of the Chicago
critics until Schneider’s essential study (Schneider 1994)—consider, for ex-
ample, the earlier treatments in Strelka and Hinderer (1970) or Zapf (2001).
68 Examples include Glicksberg (1951), Stovall (1955), Rahv (1957), Scott
(1962), Erzgräber (1970), Lipking and Litz (1972), and Guerin et al. (1992).
69 Ransom (1952), for example.
38 The Origins of the Implied Author Concept
part but could not produce any theoretical justification for their
hostility to it.70 The main reason why there was no serious engage-
ment with the Chicago pluralism, however, must be the simple fact
that it was not considered convincing. In the eyes of opponents from
the New Criticism circle, the calls for an Aristotelian approach to
literature and the polemics against competing modes of textual
analysis suggested that the Chicago school was not all that confi-
dent about its own concept of different but equally valid ways of
examining literature.71 ‘The plea for pluralism,’ Samuel F. Johnson
wrote, summarizing the repeated objections raised against the Crane
circle’s metatheoretical ideas, ‘seems to have been an afterthought,
and is effectually denied by the general tone of the rest of the
book’.72
Those in the New Criticism circle gave rather more attention to
the Chicago school’s Aristotelianism than they did to its pluralism,
but the unfavourable outcome was just the same. The reviewers of
Critics and Criticism were unanimous in asserting that Aristotelian
ideas could not provide the basis for a contemporary theoretical
approach: adopting an Aristotelian point of orientation in one’s the-
ory, they argued, inevitably meant disregarding many important
advances made in the debates on the theory of interpretation that
had taken place in the preceding decades. Ransom’s view of the
Crane circle’s approach was now noticeably different from what it
had been fifteen years earlier: ‘since it was a program which had to
be recovered from antiquity,’ he wrote this time, ‘it was anti-
70 This tendency was still present as late as 1970 when Bosonnet (1970, 58) at-
tacked the Chicago pluralism on the basis that such a perspective made the
interpretation of literature look like ‘no more than a glass bead game’
(‘bloßes Glasperlenspiel’; my translation).
71 Criticism of the mismatch between the Chicago school’s pluralistic pro-
gramme and its practical implementation is entirely legitimate. In an essay
subtitled ‘Neo-Aristotelianism since R. S. Crane’, Richter (1982, 30) hit the
mark when he said of the founding father of the Chicago critics that ‘for
every page he wrote expounding instrumental pluralism he wrote two ques-
tioning the validity of rival schools of criticism’.
72 Johnson (1953a, 250). For examples of similar objections to the Chicago
pluralism, see Vivas (1953, 148) or Wimsatt (1954b, 46–47, 58).
Poetics, Rhetoric, and Ethics 39
78 Some monographs on the history of literary criticism in the United States see
things differently. Drawing on the arguments of the New Criticism, they at-
tribute the failure of the Chicago school to shortcomings in its approach.
Readers of Grant Webster’s Republic of Letters, for example, are told that
‘the theoretical issues raised by the Aristotelians have become obsolete even
before the death of their defenders’ (Webster 1979, 123). Further examples of
this position can be found in Wellek (1956, 67–68) and Goldsmith (1979,
144–45).
79 See the pointers in Leitch (1988, 79–80) and Schneider (1994, 44–48).
Poetics, Rhetoric, and Ethics 41
87 For more detailed information on Booth’s biography and career, see Phelan
(1988) and Antczak (1995b). A bibliography of Booth’s most important out-
put and some discussions of his work can be found in Artz (1995).
88 On responses to The Rhetoric of Fiction (Booth 1961) in the years immedi-
ately following its publication, see 2.1.1 below. See Stanzel (2002b, 34) on
the success with which The Rhetoric of Fiction sold; when Stanzel was writ-
ing there had been ‘over twenty reprints … since 1961’ (‘mehr als 20 Re-
prints … seit 1961’; my translation).
89 Booth (1961, xiii).
44 The Origins of the Implied Author Concept
basic ideas of his later programme took shape while he was still
studying as a postgraduate in Chicago, even if he did not begin
work on The Rhetoric of Fiction until 1954 and initially saw the
project as a study in poetics, only much later coming to see it as a
work on rhetoric.94 Even in Chicago, Booth was aware that the
problems with which he was dealing were basically rhetorical
ones—he remembered ‘working toward an MA four-hour examina-
tion on Aristotle’s Rhetoric’ and ‘suddenly realizing, “Oh, that’s
what I’ve been up to”’.95 Even here, too, he became convinced of
the position that was to be the starting point of his argument in The
Rhetoric of Fiction: the thesis that there is no escaping the author’s
presence in the text. Before its later appearance in The Rhetoric of
Fiction, this position had a crucial role in Booth’s 1952 PMLA es-
say on ‘The Self-Conscious Narrator in Comic Fiction before Tris-
tram Shandy’, which was based on his doctoral thesis of two years
earlier. In the opening section of the essay, Booth did not just give
voice to his theory about the importance of the author; he also in-
troduced in passing the key concept of his 1961 study of narrative
rhetoric:
… it is evident that in all written works there is an implied narrator or ‘author’
who ‘intrudes’ in making the necessary choices to get his story or his argu-
ment or his exposition written in the way he desires. He decides to tell this
story rather than any other story; he employs his proof rather than any other
possible proof. In short, he writes ‘this’ rather than ‘that’, and is thus fully
characterized as an artist; he ‘intrudes’ at every step, however unobtrusively.
96
But this kind of intrusion clearly cannot be treated as a single device.
94 On the genesis of The Rhetoric of Fiction, see Booth (1988, 19). Booth
(2001b) tells us that he did not begin using the term ‘rhetoric’ when writing
The Rhetoric of Fiction ‘until at least 2/3rds of the way through the seven
years’.
95 Booth (1998a, 19). Even in the 1950s, Booth seems to have taken rhetoric as
his conceptual starting point; in his Rhetoric of Rhetoric, he defines it as fol-
lows: ‘In short, rhetoric will be seen as the entire range of resources that hu-
man beings share for producing effects on one another’ (Booth 2004, xi; em-
phasis in original).
96 Booth (1952, 164; emphasis in original).
46 The Origins of the Implied Author Concept
author be excluded from the epic genre. The typical line put forward
in this widespread view, which had been influential in poetics since
the nineteenth century, would be something like this: literature
should communicate fictive stories and imagined worlds by show-
ing rather than telling. Another equally widespread credo was the
belief that authors should not allow themselves to be drawn into
commenting on the events and characters in their works. Again and
again, Booth rebuts suggestions of this kind by pointing out that the
author can be made to vanish from the text only on a superficial
level, if at all. He argues that, because literature is always the prod-
uct of processes of selection and arrangement, it is ultimately im-
possible to implement the principle of eliminating the author from
literature: ‘the author’s voice is never really silenced’.99 As early as
the first chapter, Booth summarizes his position as follows:
In short, the author’s judgement is always present, always evident for anyone
who knows how to look for it. Whether its particular forms are harmful or
serviceable is always a complex question, a question that cannot be settled by
any easy reference to abstract rules. As we begin to deal with this question,
we must never forget that though the author can to some extent choose his
disguises, he can never choose to disappear.100
For Booth, against the background of this insight, the rhetorical
analysis of literary texts was not merely legitimate—it was an ab-
solute necessity. It was high time to explain the different forms in
which authors could show themselves in their works.101
Booth devoted the second and third parts of The Rhetoric of Fic-
tion to putting this plan into practice. In part 2, ‘The Author’s Voice
in Fiction’,102 he began by returning to the ideas of his 1952 PMLA
107 In his Rhetoric of Irony, Booth described the interaction between author and
recipient as a ‘pas de deux’ (Booth 1974, 33).
108 Booth (1968, 84–85).
109 See, for example, the explicit references to the fallacies denounced by the
New Criticism in Booth (1961, 6, 386).
110 Booth (1974, xiii).
111 Booth (1974, 11). On the context of this remark, see Booth (1974, 126 n. 13).
50 The Origins of the Implied Author Concept
hand, he wanted to bring author and recipient back into focus in the
academic study of literature; on the other hand, he wanted to avoid
stepping outside the work itself and thus committing one of the fal-
lacies that the New Criticism had established as heresies of inter-
pretation theory.
Booth thought it might be possible to escape from this dilemma
by turning to the entity known as the implied author, which he had
introduced in his 1952 discussion of the self-conscious narrator
without attaching particular importance to it at the time. He seems
to have been made aware of the concept’s potential by ‘The Tale
and the Teller’, Kathleen Tillotson’s 1959 inaugural lecture at Bed-
ford College, London. In it, Tillotson, herself drawing on Booth’s
PMLA essay,112 described as ‘simple-minded’ the hope of many
modern authors that the epic could be freed of all its rhetorical im-
plications by doing away the ‘narrator in person’: ‘we are being di-
rected all the while, by selection and emphasis and tone. Technical-
ly “invisible”, the author remains as a subliminal advertiser, a hid-
den persuader.’113 To show what she meant by this idea of an author
(or narrator) who is not necessary visible, but nonetheless present,
in every text, Tillotson referred to a comment the critic and poet
Edward Dowden had made about the work of George Eliot:
The ‘narrator’ … is a method rather than a person; indeed the ‘narrator’ never
is the author as man; much confusion has arisen from the identification, and
much conscious art has been overlooked. Writing on George Eliot in 1877,
Dowden said that the form that most persists in the mind after reading her
novels is not any of the characters, but ‘one, who, if not the real George Eliot,
is that second self who writes her books, and lives and speaks through them’.
The ‘second self’, he goes on, is ‘more substantial than any mere human per-
sonality’, and has ‘fewer reserves’; while ‘behind it, lurks well pleased the
veritable historical self secure from impertinent observation and criticism’.114
115 Booth’s introduction of the concept with reference to the term ‘second self’
as used by Dowden and then Tillotson may explain why he claims only to
have coined the expression ‘implied author’, not to have come up with the
idea itself. See Booth (1998c, 393), in which he says that he ‘invented the
term, though not the concept, of “implied author”’.
116 Booth (1961, 70–74).
117 Booth (1961, 73).
52 The Origins of the Implied Author Concept
completed artistic whole; the chief value to which this implied author is com-
mitted, regardless of what party his creator belongs to in real life, is that
which is expressed by the total form.118
Third, and finally, Booth sought to make clear the difference be-
tween the implied author and the concept of the author itself. His
basic line of reasoning followed one of the central arguments with
which the New Criticism had criticized intentionalistic interpreta-
tions. In their famous essay on the intentional fallacy, Beardsley and
Wimsatt had proposed among other things that, as there is no guar-
antee that what is intended will be the same as what is actually
achieved, it is not appropriate to consider authorial intentions when
interpreting literature.119 So, Wimsatt and Beardsley suggested,
when studying a work, one should aim not to establish what its
writer meant it to say, but to use linguistic rules to determine what it
actually means.120 Booth wanted to take account of this maxim
without abandoning the idea that literary works represent intention-
ally structured normative worlds about which moral judgements can
be made. Thus, he suggested that the implied author be distin-
guished from the empirical author and treated as the entity that
wants to express exactly what the text means. Booth left open the
question of whether this proposal was meant to be an empirical
statement about the meaning of texts or to specify an objective (by
definition a fixed one) to be pursued when interpreting them: ‘The
“implied author” chooses, consciously or unconsciously, what we
read; we infer him as an ideal, literary, created version of the real
man; he is the sum of his own choices.’121
In retrospect, Booth described the introduction of the implied
author as a conceptual consequence of the tendency he developed at
an early date to ‘deal with the text as a person, or … as the act of a
person’; he saw the concept as an expression of his conviction that
literature was not just about meanings but also and always about
‘love or hate, admiration or detestation, good or bad fellowship,
domination or seduction’.122 When we retrace the emergence of the
concept in detail, however, we cannot but feel that Booth’s own
representation of the situation tries to portray as a well thought-
through proposition something that was really the outcome of a dif-
ficult compromise. Booth was convinced that he could not simply
ignore central interpretive doctrines of the New Criticism, but he
also believed it was necessary to subject literary works to ethical
appraisal. The implied author helped him to reconcile these two as-
pirations—it made it possible for him to pursue a programme of
combined rhetorical and ethical literary analysis without having to
bring the empirical author into play.123
The introduction of the implied author, then, does not just show
how tightly the dogmas of contemporary literary criticism con-
strained Booth when he formulated his approach. The way in which
he introduced the concept also reveals something that the presenta-
tion of his project otherwise tends to obscure: his debt to the Chi-
cago school of criticism in The Rhetoric of Fiction. Booth certainly
distanced himself clearly from the ideas of the Chicago critics by
taking as his starting point the assumption that narrative texts pur-
sue ‘moral ends with rhetorical means’.124 But, at its core, the pro-
gramme that Booth developed on this foundation corresponded to
the concept of literary criticism that his teachers, Crane, McKeon,
and Olson, had developed on the basis of the Aristotelian theory of
causality. The introduction of the implied author shows that Booth,
like the founders of the Chicago school, hoped to develop a sophis-
ticated way of analysing the form of literary texts, an approach
125 This basic similarity between Booth’s approach and that of the Chicago
school is often overlooked (as, for example, in Baker 1977).
126 Booth (1967, xvii). See also, for example, Booth (1961, 74–75; 1982, 21).
Poetics, Rhetoric, and Ethics 55
in 1980, for example, Booth conceded that he had long had too sim-
plistic a picture of the implied author and the way its reconstruction
takes place. Over the years, he said, it had become clear to him that
the concept does not necessarily coincide with the totality of the
norms that can be read out of a work:
I have slowly discovered that my own discussion of the implied author in The
Rhetoric of Fiction was too simple … . It seemed at times to say that the au-
thor we find implied in texts has cut off all his moorings with the ‘real world’,
and it thus led some readers into awkward ways of talking about how we in
fact do make valid inferences from implied authors to real authors. But both
the author and the reader in the text are not simple, single, credulous folk who
believe in all the norms of the work, including beetle-metamorphosis: they are
complex folk who can pretend to believe and yet remember that they are pre-
tending.134
Taking this train of thought further, in an essay of 1997 Booth came
to the conclusion that the implied author of a text could be more
than just a highly complex entity; he now believed it was possible
that there were many works in which it could not be grasped as an
unambiguous whole: ‘Too often in my early work I suggested a
total communion between two utterly confident, secure, correct, and
wise human beings at the top of the human heap: the implied author
and me. Now I see an implied author who is manifold’.135
When Booth did propose refinements of how the implied author
was to be understood, as in the two examples discussed above, he
was always prompted to do so by the impression that use of the
concept in its current form did not lead to adequate descriptions of
empirical interpretive processes. He saw no reason to doubt that his
efforts to define the concept were formally well-formed and his
deliberations clear, unambiguous, and consistent. Neither in The
Rhetoric of Fiction itself nor in his later work did Booth attempt to
determine the exact relationship between his various definitions of
the implied author, let alone draw together the competing descrip-
tions he suggested for it. He did not, for example, note that the re-
peated attempts to elucidate the concept in The Rhetoric of Fiction
(2) The Rhetoric of Fiction left open not only the question of how
the implied author was defined, but also that of how it was to be
reconstructed. Not once in the entire book did Booth even begin to
try to describe in any detail how the implied author of a literary text
can be discovered on the basis of that text.142 Presumably, Booth
did not give the necessary attention to such issues because, as we
have seen, he believed there was no need to decide whether his term
stood for the self-image of the author or the author-image of the
reader. According to one of his views, the implied author was a con-
struct made by the empirical recipient, and he explicitly stated in
this respect that the presence of authors in their texts could only be
recognized by someone ‘who knows how to look for it’.143 Yet,
despite this assumption, he saw no reason to indicate how such a
search might proceed, what steps it should involve, or what methods
should be followed and what rules observed during it. Booth clearly
considered comment on such matters to be superfluous because he
assumed that the construction of the implied author would be
guided unambiguously by—the implied author. Correspondingly,
The Rhetoric of Fiction says regarding the presence of authors in
texts that ‘it is clear that the picture the reader gets of this presence
is one of the author’s most important effects’.144 Even by the time
of his death, Booth had not closed this remarkable methodological
gap in his many treatments of the implied author. Even if he seemed
to see more clearly than he did at the time of The Rhetoric of Fic-
tion that analysing literature with the tools of rhetoric is only one
interpretive programme among many, he continued to treat recon-
structing the implied author as a privileged mode of textual inter-
pretation:
I always attacked the anti-intentionalists as confusing two intentions: the pos-
sible (inferred) intentions of the flesh-and-blood author—quoted in his jour-
possible to sitting in the author’s chair and making this text, becoming able to
remake it, employing the author’s “reason-of-art”’ (Booth 1982, 21).
142 See Phelan (1992).
143 Booth (1982, 20).
144 Booth (1961, 71).
Poetics, Rhetoric, and Ethics 61
nals, his letters, his conversation—and the actual intentions as revealed in the
totality of his or her choices.’145
The following study of the concept’s reception will show that its
popularity and widespread dissemination in the text-based disci-
plines are due above all to the very points of uncertainty that char-
acterized Booth’s definitions of it in The Rhetoric of Fiction and
after.
145 Booth (2001b; our emphasis). In the same year, Booth (2001a, 103–4) made
a very similar comment in his essay ‘Literary Criticism and the Pursuit of
Character’: ‘some kinds of stories … contain within themselves a kind of
ethical education that makes them almost certain to be elevating for any
reader who is qualified to understand the stories at all. … A lot of critics on
our scene would claim that everything depends on the reader. But what I
want to say is that although a lot depends on the reader, much of the quality
of the experience depends on the quality of the text itself’.
2 Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology:
The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
sponse to which Booth’s concept has given rise.2 Even so, it will be
useful to have at least a rough picture of the debate’s historical
course in mind when undertaking this classification. We shall there-
fore begin by presenting a model of the phases in which it has un-
folded.
Essentially, our analysis of implied author reception applies to all
references to the concept since its introduction. As well as consid-
ering discussion of the concept in the academic study of literature,
we shall refer to views expressed on it in other disciplines where it
has occasionally been used but rarely been subjected to critical dis-
cussion—psychology, theology, and film and media studies, for
example. Because explication is our ultimate objective, our survey
will focus primarily on those references to the implied author that,
on the basis of more or less systematic reflection, develop ideas for
elucidating or replacing the concept. However, our study of the con-
cept’s reception will also consider applied and illustrative ways in
which it has been used, and usages with more complex pretexts.3
Because we intend to reconstruct the reception of the implied
author concept, not just that of the term, we must also consider the
various alternative and competing categories that have joined it
since the 1970s—Umberto Eco’s Model Author, Wolfgang Iser’s
implied reader, Wolf Schmid’s abstract author, Kendall Walton’s
apparent artist, Alexander Nehamas’s postulated author, and Greg-
ory Currie’s fictional author, to name but a few prominent exam-
ples. As they have generally been introduced outside the context of
the discussion of Booth’s concept, their significance for the implied
author debate must be determined separately in each case. For this
reason, the various alternative categories are treated separately at
the end of our survey of implied author reception and only then
considered in terms of our typology of ways in which the concept
has been used.4
2 We have Weber’s concept of the ideal type in mind here; see Weber (1904,
190–92; 1921, 19–22).
3 See Danneberg (1989b, 53) on the ways in which concepts are used.
4 The various author models developed in the context of formalism all closely
resemble the implied author in definition and function, but we shall pass over
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 65
them here, for, as far as we can see, the discussion of such proposals and the
debate surrounding Booth’s concept have generally unfolded independently
of one another. An overview of the various author models of formalism can
be found in Schmid (2005).
5 On the concept of interpretation, see Spree (2000). On other kinds of inter-
pretation which we do not consider here, see, for example, Novitz (2002),
Bühler (2003), or Carlshamre and Pettersson (2003).
6 On the difference between interpretation and description, see 2.2.2 below.
7 There are of course some references to Booth’s concept which cannot be as-
signed to one of the differentiated contexts of implied author reception. See,
for example, Knight (1979), Schippers (1981), Coney (1984), or Reid (1986).
8 Those positions on the implied author adopted in what we call the context of
interpretation in practice (see 2.2.2 below) are an exception.
66 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
Dpoufyut!pg!Sfdfqujpo
Joufsqsfubujpo Eftdsjqujpo
Qpfujdt0Joufsqsfubujpo
Kvtujgjdbujpo Dsjujdjtn Kvtujgjdbujpo Dsjujdjtn
Npefm)t* Bmufsobujwf)t* Npefm)t* Bmufsobujwf)t*
Qptjujwf!Sftqpotft Ofhbujwf!Sftqpotft
9 These intricacies of implied author reception are not given sufficient attention
in Kindt and Müller (1999).
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 67
shape and how their significance has changed in the course of the
debate.
As we have seen, the implied author first appeared in Booth’s
1952 essay ‘The Self-Conscious Narrator in Comic Fiction before
Tristram Shandy’.10 Wider discussion of the concept, however, be-
gan only when reviews of The Rhetoric of Fiction appeared on the
scene. Those reviews that gave consideration to the concept used it
to illustrate exemplary uses and disadvantages of the project of
drawing up a rhetoric of literary works. The implied author debate,
in other words, began as a dispute regarding interpretation theory.
The discussion was given a new direction by John Killham’s 1966
essay ‘The “Second Self” in Novel Criticism’. This text contains the
first attempt to examine the implied author independently rather
than continuing to see it simply as the central concept in a rhetorical
approach to literature. Another, more significant turning point in the
controversy surrounding Booth’s concept, of course, was the pro-
fessionalization of the study of narrative in the second half of the
1960s and its establishment in the academic study of literature dur-
ing the 1970s.11 Discussion of the implied author underwent a fun-
damental change in the course of this latter development. The
concept continued to be discussed from the perspective of inter-
pretation theory, but less and less prominently so as narratology
became more and more successful. From 1970 onwards, textual de-
scription and interpretation in practice became the central contexts
of implied author reception. Since then, discussion of the concept
Sfdfqujpo!jo!sfmbujpo!up!joufsqsfubujpo!uifpsz
Sfdfqujpo!jo!sfmbujpo!up!joufsqsfubujpo!jo!qsbdujdf
Sfdfqujpo!jo!sfmbujpo!up!eftdsjqujpo
12 See Swiggart (1963, 142–43). Christadler (1963), Stanzel (1964), and Wei-
mann (1967) show that Booth’s Rhetoric of Fiction was soon noticed outside
the United States as well, in this case in the German-speaking countries.
13 Wright (1962, 566).
14 Lodge (1962, 581).
15 Stegner (1961, 464).
16 Beebe (1961/62, 373).
17 Mays (1962, 84), for example, writes concerning the welcome given to
Booth’s work that ‘The Rhetoric of Fiction has had exceptionally favorable
reviews. These reviews, it seems to me, fall into two classes; the merely un-
intelligent, and the invalid.’ On this, see also Swiggart (1963, 143).
18 Mays (1962, 85).
70 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
The total situation … includes the author as an historical person outside the
work, the author’s second self as manifest in the work itself, such other re-
porters as may be chosen for the narrative task in whole or in part, and the
23
reader as he participates, expects, accepts, rejects.
Booth’s popularity among this group of reviewers was due above all
to the fact that he did not give a precise statement of the definition
of the implied author; in particular, he did not make the distinction
between the implied and the empirical author particularly clear.24
The second group of reviewers, by far the most substantial one,
also supported Booth’s approach to the study of literature. In con-
trast to those in the first group, however, they were convinced that
the implied author had a key role to play in the rhetoric of epic
texts. Like Booth himself, they believed that the concept made it
possible to consider authors and recipients in literary analysis with-
out violating the interpretive maxims of the New Criticism. This po-
sition is clearly apparent, for example, in the review by Mark Ro-
berts. He wrote regarding the implied author that
the term refers to the idea we form of ‘the author’, his values, beliefs, and at-
titudes. It must be stressed that this is not an invitation to ‘inductive biogra-
phy’, to the use of the book as a source of evidence for non-literary enquiries
about the actual author as a person. The ‘implied author’ … is part of his
book, part of its total effect: our consideration of the ‘implied author’ is a con-
sideration of an aspect of the book, not a covert attempt to leave literary criti-
cism and indulge into something else.25
The potential that this second group of reviewers saw in the implied
author was even more clearly expressed by David Lodge in the
Modern Language Review. His admiring discussion of the book
lauded it for providing the poetics of the novel that the academic
study of literature had been lacking for so long: ‘a “Poetics” of the
novel … is what we have needed, and that is what Professor Booth
has given us’.26 For Lodge, the quality of The Rhetoric of Fiction
was due primarily to the implied author concept employed in the
pretation of its theme as well as the beliefs and intentions of its au-
thor’.30 Such views of The Rhetoric of Fiction were at work when
the third group of reviewers read Booth’s idea of the implied author
as an ineffectual attempt to prevent the New Criticism from finding
fault with his programme of rhetorical interpretation:
The notion of the implied author who reflects the actual author’s attitudes and
beliefs is a way of coping verbally with an author’s ability to project his per-
sonality into a work of fiction and yet remain somehow detached. But Mr.
Booth seems to employ the concept mainly as an excuse for dealing with the
author’s own attitudes and values without falling victim, in an obvious way, to
the intentional fallacy.31
To support this view, reviewers argued that Booth defined and used
the implied author as a source of moral norms:
Mr. Booth makes much the same mistake that at one point he warns his reader
against, that of confusing the author as man with the implied self he projects
into his work. He conceives such an implied author in moral terms that are
appropriate only to human individuals and not to their artistic creations.32
The third group of critics rejected the concept of the implied author
just as they did the author category that it was meant to replace.
Essentially, they were seeking to defend an orthodox form of the
New Criticism against Booth’s programme of a new, rhetorically
oriented approach to the study of literature.
However much they differed in detail, all three groups of reviews
considered Booth’s Rhetoric of Fiction against the background of
the original context in which he had written the monograph. This
perspective was soon to change.
ies the way in which the author of a text expects the text to be re-
ceived by readers in the ideal case. The concept of the authorial
audience can also, however, serve as a norm against which to evalu-
ate interpretations of a text.39 Thus, as Rabinowitz himself has re-
peatedly pointed out, his approach is not really a theory of reception
but instead presents a special kind of intentionalistic theory of inter-
pretation:
The notion of the authorial audience is clearly tied to authorial intention but it
gets around some of the problems that have traditionally hampered the discus-
sion of intention by treating it as a matter of social convention rather than of
individual psychology. In other words, my perspective allows us to treat the
reader’s attempt to read as the author intended, not as a search for the author’s
private psyche, but rather as the joining of a particular social/interpretive com-
munity; that is, the acceptance of the author’s invitation to read in a particular
socially constructed way that is shared by the author and his or her expected
readers.40
Against the background of these ideas, Rabinowitz is able to treat
the implied author as a terminological variant of the authorial audi-
ence; he generally understands his and Booth’s key terms as two
ways of referring to a single approach, each reflecting a different
perspective on it.41 In a recent overview of various lines of thought
in reception theory, Rabinowitz has again set out the reasoning be-
hind his point of view and his decision to refer to Booth’s concept:
Although recognizing the importance of reviving close study of the author …,
Booth is strongly influenced by the formalist heritage that resists biographical
explanations of literary texts. He solves this dilemma by distinguishing the
actual flesh-and-blood author from the ‘second self’ he or she chooses to pre-
39 See especially Rabinowitz (1987, 36): ‘authorial reading has a special status
against which other readings can be measured (although not necessarily nega-
tively); it is a kind of norm (although not necessarily a positive value), in that
it serves as a point of orientation (although not necessarily as an ultimate des-
tination). In short, authorial reading—in the sense of understanding the val-
ues of the authorial audience—has its own kind of validity, even if, in the
end, actual readers share neither the experiences nor the values presumed by
the author.’
40 Rabinowitz (1987, 22).
41 Rabinowitz (1987, 23).
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 77
sent to us. … This image can be inferred from the particular choices mani-
fested in the text.42
The second subgroup of positive responses to the implied author
consists of those that approve of the concept on a general level but
have major reservations about the particular form in which it ap-
peared in Booth’s work. Like the exponents of the first subgroup,
the representatives of this one do not dispute that the implied author
category is in some way relevant to interpretation theory. Unlike
them, however, they do not believe that minor corrections to
Booth’s definition are all that is needed to make using the implied
author a viable proposition. Instead, they proceed on the assumption
that a fundamental reconceptualization of the concept is required.
The necessity of such a revision is usually justified with reference
to the problems that arise when we try to reconstruct the implied
author of individual literary texts in practice. According to the the-
sis behind this type of implied author reception, then, there are con-
siderable limits to the use of Booth’s concept in its original guise.
There are many texts where describing the nature of the implied au-
thor is relatively straightforward, but, the argument goes, there are
just as many novels and novellas where it is not.
An example of such a view can be found in the discussion that
has been unfolding for some time in the study of literature in North
America about whether a more dynamic view of Booth’s concept is
needed. The dispute is centred on the idea that, instead of searching
for the implied author, attention should be given to the implication
process itself. The debate was set in motion by an essay in the jour-
nal Narrative in which Elisabeth Preston attempts to characterize
the implied author of The Great Gatsby.43 Whereas Booth clearly
has no difficulties in drawing F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel into his
combined rhetorical and ethical analysis of literature, mentioning it
a number of times in The Rhetoric of Fiction,44 Preston’s interpreta-
tion concludes that it is not actually possible to obtain a coherent
51 See Killham (1966, 274). Booth (1968, 75–82) gives a detailed response to
Killham’s criticism in his essay ‘The Rhetoric of Fiction and the Poetics of
Fiction’.
52 See 1.2.2 above.
53 Killham (1966, 277).
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 81
is not a good choice. An author … is in some sense in his work, but he is not
the work as a whole. That is something fashioned to an end, but not rhetori-
cally as in a speech, or sermon, or essay, but as a fiction, a thing made to re-
present actions.54
For Killham, then, the implied author concept expresses Booth’s in-
ability to decide between two incompatible positions. Booth, he
thinks, was really concerned primarily with the empirical author of
literary works but was prevented from pursuing this interest in his
study because he was reluctant to depart from certain key principles
of the New Criticism, even though, as is clear from The Rhetoric of
Fiction, he did not really have any interest in questions of formal
analysis.55 Killham describes as follows the unfortunate dilemma in
which Booth found himself entangled when developing his ap-
proach and its central concept:
Booth is (perhaps unconsciously) seeking the impossible, to reconcile his
conception with the central tenet of the New Criticism. For it is clear that
what he really seeks to describe by the term is not the reader’s grasp of the
meaning, or theme, or significance, or even style of the work, but something
quite different, the reader’s idea of what the mind of the author of the work
must be like. … What Booth wants to emphasize is really no more than that
literary works have authors and do not get written by themselves. But he does
not pursue any profitable implications of this remark because he also accepts
that the New Criticism denies him the right to argue for a return to biography
as criticism.56
In most cases, however, negative reactions to the implied author in
the context of interpretation theory go beyond the moderate criti-
cism of the kind we find in Killham’s discussion. In the majority of
cases, reaction to the concept is characterized by far more funda-
mental reservations and objections. The representatives of this type
of implied author reception do not, as a rule, provide a substantial
analysis of Booth’s remarks on the implied author. Instead, they are
primarily concerned with presenting their own approaches to inter-
57 See Juhl (1980a; 1980b, 153–95). The essay and monograph chapter are one
and the same text.
58 Juhl (1980a, 179).
59 It is sufficient here to note that these theoretical objections rest on the pro-
blematic accusation that the implied author involves a fictional subject (see
Juhl 1980a, 183–84).
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 83
in the structuralist sense and that his implied author should not be
seen as a narratological concept.70
The question, then, is whether Booth’s rhetorical programme is
compatible with the narratological enterprise. The opinions ex-
pressed about the implied author in relation to this question differ
markedly from one another in detail. Even so, two basic subgroups
of implied author reception can be distinguished on the basis of the
concept of narrative theory behind them and the position they take
regarding the relationship between narratology and textual inter-
pretation. The first subgroup comprises responses to the implied
author in relation to how interpretation takes place in practice, the
second responses in relation to textual description.
The implied author has met with almost unanimous approval in the
context of work relating to interpretation in practice. As indicated
above, Booth’s concept has been positively received here because
almost all work representing this type of reception assumes that the
process of literary communication be properly described only if the
implied author is brought into play. Sometimes, this view is an ex-
pression of the more radical thesis that employing the concept is a
thor ab, sondern davon, inwiefern die Weltsicht des Erzählers mit dem Wirk-
lichkeitsmodell des Rezipienten zu vereinbaren ist’; Nünning 1998b, 25; my
translation). Another alternative to Booth’s understanding of the phenomenon
is developed in Martinez and Scheffel (1999), Cohn (2000), and Kindt (2004,
2005).
94 Chatman (1990a, 76).
95 See the chapter ‘In Defense of the Implied Author’ in Chatman (1990a, 74–
89).
96 Ewen (1974, ix). Despite this observation, Ewen’s remarks on explicating the
concept turn out to be of little help in clarifying it. He writes that ‘the implied
author is, in truth, a construction in the mind of the reader’, then says that
‘the biographical author creates the implied author’, before finally asserting
94 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
that ‘the implied author … is constructed by the entirety of the work’ (Ewen
1974, ix).
97 Rimmon (1976, 58).
98 Rimmon-Kenan (1983, 88). The concept is explained in a similar manner by
various representatives of reception in the context of textual description (see,
for example, Bal 1981a, 42; 1985, 119, or Diengott 1993a, 181; 1993b, 73).
See 2.2.3 below.
99 Yacobi (1987) points towards some possibilities for clarifying these issues.
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 95
Indeed, it is for this very reason that most work on the implied
author in the context of interpretation in practice does not attempt to
clarify its definition by isolating a single aspect of its use. The aim
is instead to arrive at an explication of the concept in which the en-
tire spectrum of its meanings is preserved. There are a number of
passages in The Rhetoric of Fiction in which Booth gives what we
might call a synopsis of his various characterizations of the implied
author.100 Drawing on them, most of those who discuss the concept
in relation to interpretation in practice suggest that the implied au-
thor be defined as the totality of the elements in a text and the strat-
egy behind their selection and arrangement. The normative moral
order of a work thus becomes only one of several aspects that must
be considered when determining the implied author. This explica-
tion of Booth’s category, then, proposes that it should be understood
as an entity to which the underlying conception of a text can be at-
tributed, as a ‘sensibility behind the narrative that accounts for how
it is constructed’.101 This kind of understanding of the concept is at
work when Chatman suggests the following definition: ‘The source
of a … text’s whole structure of meaning—not only of assertion and
denotation but also of its implication, connotation, and ideological
nexus—is the implied author.’102 Comparable attempts to explicate
the implied author are hardly uncommon in reception of the concept
in terms of interpretation in practice, but they do little to help clarify
it. By retaining the various facets of the concept’s meaning, the for-
mulations that have been put forward to date preserve the very in-
consistencies that marked Booth’s remarks on the implied author in
the first place. In many cases, those who follow this approach to ex-
plicating the concept understand it as a syntactic, semantic, and
pragmatic concept all at once; they define the implied author as a
100 See, for example, Booth (1961, 73–74): ‘Our sense of the implied author in-
cludes not only the extractable meanings but also the moral and emotional
content of each bit of action and suffering of all of the characters. It includes,
in short, the intuitive apprehension of the completed artistic whole’.
101 Abbott (2002, 77). On such a view, see also Ewen (1974), Schwarz (1985),
Reid (1986), Chatman (1978, 1990a), Nelles (1993), and Schönert (1999).
102 Chatman (1990a, 75).
96 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
103 Chatman (1990a, 74, 81, 104). The comments of Nilli Diengott and Ansgar
Nünning on Chatman’s attempts to explicate the concept apply also to most
other similar attempts at clarification. Diengott (1993b, 70) writes that ‘Chat-
man … tries to defend implied author by clarifying the term. However, his
discussion seems to muddy the waters even more’, and Nünning (1993, 2)
observes that ‘however, a not inconsiderable number of people will feel more
convinced in their scepticism towards the implied author when confronted
with the terminological, methodological, and pragmatic arguments that Chat-
man advances in support of the concept’ (‘hingegen werden sich nicht weni-
ge von den terminologischen, methodischen und pragmatischen Argumenten,
die Chatman für den implied author ins Feld führt, in ihrer Skepsis gegenüber
dem Konzept bestärkt fühlen’; my translation).
104 See, for example, Martin (1986, 153): ‘Booth and others use a linear com-
munication model to explain fiction. … But by including the reader as an es-
sential feature of the narrative situation, and by fixing the concept of literary
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 97
Obssbujwf!ufyu
meaning between narrator and reader, this model suggests new ways of what
happens when we read’ (emphasis in original).
105 Booth himself agreed that such explication was necessary when he looked
back on the positions he had adopted in the early 1960s (see Booth 1983a,
428–30).
106 See Petersen (1980) on the establishment of such models in the study of nar-
rative.
107 Chatman (1978, 151). Explaining the diagram, Chatman says here: ‘The box
indicates that only the implied author and implied reader are immanent to a
narrative. The narrator and narratee are optional (parentheses). The real au-
thor and real reader are outside the narrative transaction as such, though, of
course, indispensable to it in an ultimate practical sense.’
98 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
NJNFTJT!PG!DPNNVOJDBUJPO
ejbmphvf-!obssbujpo
pg!xibu!xbt!tbje
jnqmjfe esbnbuj{fe
xsjufs!!jnqmjfe!!esbnbuj{fe!!esbnbuj{fe!!obssbujwf!!obssbuff!!npefm!!bvuipsjbm!!sfbm
esbnbuj{fe npefm bvuipsjbm sfbm
bvuips bvuips obssbups sfbefs sfbefs sfbefs
111 Bronzwaer (1981, 194). On Bronzwaer’s essay, see also Bal (1981a, 1981b).
112 Bronzwaer (1981, 200). Comparable positions are adopted by Füger (1974),
Bronzwaer (1978), Knight (1979), Lanser (1981), Martin (1986), York
(1987), Wallace (1988), and Currie (1993). A series of remarks by Booth
himself suggests that the implied author should be understood in this way
(see Booth 1952, 164; 1961, 71–74).
113 See, for example, Hempfer (1977, 10): ‘The models whose construction is
based on communication theory contain … a number of problematic enti-
ties—the implied author or the implied reader, for example—that it is better
to do without. Not only would they appear to be of no theoretical use; they
also confuse what is really the fundamental distinction, that between text-in-
ternal and text-external communication situations.’ (‘Die auf kommunika-
tionstheoretischer Grundlage konstruierten Modelle enthalten … einige prob-
lematische Entitäten wie etwa den impliziten Autor oder den impliziten Le-
ser, auf die man besser verzichtet. Sie scheinen nicht nur theoretisch unnütz,
sie vermischen auch die eigentlich fundamentale Unterscheidung, nämlich
der von textinterner und textexterner Sprechsituation’; my translation). For
criticism of the communication model approach, see also Nünning (1993, 8–
9; 2001a, 373), Jahn and Nünning (1994, 285), and Jahn (1995, 45). For a
different view, though, see Nünning (1989, 22–40).
100 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
118 Toolan (1988, 78; emphasis in original). On this position, see also Jannidis
(2004, 15–83; 2002, 546–47): ‘The participants in narrative communication,
for example the “implied author” or the “narrator”, are not entities that share
in the reality of the fictional communication … . They are rather concepts
with which readers associate the information in a text in order to process that
information.’ (‘Die Instanzen der narrativen Kommunikation, z.B. “impliziter
Autor” oder “Erzähler”, sind keine Entitäten die an der Realität der fiktion-
alen Kommunikation beteiligt sind … . Es sind vielmehr Konzepte des Le-
sers, mit denen er Informationen aus dem Text durch Zuschreibung verar-
beitet’; my translation).
119 Jannidis (2002, 548; emphasis in original). ‘Das Konstrukt eines Autors
durch den Leser, d.h. seiner Intention, seiner Merkmale, usw., aufgrund eines
bestimmten Textes’ (my translation). On this view, see also Ewen (1974),
Kummer (1976), Kummer and Schmitz (1976), Rimmon (1976), Rimmon-
Kenan (1983), Chatman (1978), Chatman (1990a), or Nelles (1993).
102 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
120 Jannidis (2002, 548). ‘Auf diese Weise kann man terminologisch recht ein-
fach zwischen Autorkonstrukten aufgrund von biographischen Quellen
(Briefwechseln, Zeugnissen über bestimmte Begegnungen etc.), von mehre-
ren Texten—sozusagen der Werkautor oder “career author” (Booth)—oder
eben aufgrund von einem Text unterscheiden’ (my translation). On the vari-
ous kinds and functions of author-constructs, see also Jannidis (1999).
121 See, for example, Chatman (1990a, 78) or Currie (1990, 81). A correspond-
ing perspective underlies most of the concepts that have been put forward as
alternatives to that of the implied author (see 2.3 below).
122 Darby (2001, 839). On this position, see also Schwarz (1985, 484) or Wieg-
mann (1981, 40). Darby (2003, 427) has recently explained this understand-
ing of the implied author again, remarkably referring to Rimmon-Kenan’s
suggestions for explicating the concept in the process.
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 103
123 Heinen (2002, 337). ‘Die Konstruktion eines Autorbildes kann man sich pa-
rallel zum Prozeß der Figurenkonstruktion vorstellen. Der Leser hat meist ein
gewisses Vorwissen über den Autor, kennt in der Regel zumindest seinen Na-
men, sein Geschlecht und häufig auch seine Lebensdaten. Auch der Verlag,
das Cover eines Buches, ein Vorwort oder der Titel eines Werkes enthalten
Informationen, die auf den Autor bezogen werden können … . Darüber hin-
aus vermittelt der Text durch seinen Stil, die Thematik und implizite oder ex-
plizite Wertungen einem Eindruck vom Autor. Auch allgemeine Klischees
von Schriftstellern … spielen sicher im Prozeß der Autorkonstruktion eine
nicht zu vernachlässigende Rolle. Aus all diesen Informationen textuellen,
paratextuellen und kontextuellen Ursprungs kann in der Vorstellung des Le-
sers ein Bild des Autors entstehen. Jede zusätzliche Information in Form wei-
terer literarischer Werke oder nichtfiktionaler Auskünfte über den Autor wird
in dieses Bild integriert; gelingt dies nicht, muß es zu einer grundlegenden
Revision des Bildes kommen’ (my translation). On the idea and construction
of author-images, see also Heinen (2006, 41–48).
104 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
128 Examples of such a treatment of Booth’s concept in two stages can be found
in Genette (1988) and Diengott (1993a) (see 2.2.3 below).
129 See Kindt and Müller (2003b, 206–09) on various types of standpoint on this
question.
106 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
130 When we speak of description in the present context, we are in all cases re-
ferring to the particular narratological programme outlined here. This does
not change the fact that description also has an important role in other lines of
narratology—see, for example, Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan’s remarks on struc-
turalism and the direction taken in her own studies of the 1980s: ‘Of the
various branches of literary study, description seemed the one closest to the
status of science, and indeed a description of the ways in which literature op-
erates was conceived of as the goal of literary theory’ (Rimmon-Kenan 2002,
136–37).
131 See Strube (2003) on various types of meaning in literary texts; see Danne-
berg (1996) and Kindt and Müller (2003d) on the concept of description in
disciplines based on textual interpretation
132 Genette (1980); the original French version is entitled ‘Discours du récit:
essai de méthode’ (Genette 1972).
133 Genette (1980, 23). ‘Une méthode d’analyse’ (Genette 1972, 68). As shown
by, for example, the work of Eberhard Lämmert and Franz Stanzel in the
1950s, a corresponding understanding of narratology lay behind the German-
language study of narrative from an early date (see, for example, Lämmert
1955, 17–18; Stanzel 1959, 127–28; 1964, 9–10; Stanzel 1979, 300; Petersen
1977, 167–71; 1993, 1–4). Only in the recent past have efforts been made to
explicate this idea, for example in Stanzel (2002b), on which see Kindt
(2003).
134 Genette (1980, 265). ‘Un instrument d’incarcération, d’émondage castrateur
ou de mise au pas’; ‘une procédure de découverte, et un moyen de descrip-
tion’ (Genette 1972, 271).
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 107
135 Genette (1988). The original French version is entitled Nouveau discours du
récit (Genette 1983).
136 Genette (1988, 155). ‘Impositions de “cohérence”’; ‘critique interprétative’;
‘la fonction de la narratologie n’est pas de recomposer ce que la textologie
décompose’ (Genette 1983, 108).
137 On this position, see also Sontag (1967). A detailed study of Sontag’s essay
can be found in Spree (1995, 59–136), a typological classification of it in
Kindt and Müller (2003d, 298–301).
138 Bal (1985). Bal’s book was first published in 1977 in French, then in a re-
vised version in Dutch in 1980, and in modified form again in English in
1985. The second edition of the latter, to which a new preface has been ad-
ded, appeared in 1997.
108 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
though not absolutely arbitrary since it does, or should, interact with a text, is
in practice unlimited and free. Hence, I find the need for a discourse that
makes each interpretation expressible, accessible, communicable. … The
tools proposed can be put to varied uses. I have myself used the theory for
both aesthetic and ideological criticism … . Hence, the need of more theory,
beyond narratology: a theory that accounts for the functions and positions of
texts of different backgrounds, genres, and historical periods. One need not
adhere to structuralism as a philosophy in order to be able to use the concepts
and views presented in this book. Neither does one need to feel that adherence
to, for example, a deconstructionist, Marxist or feminist view of literature hin-
ders the use of this book.139
Like most exponents of a description-oriented narrative theory, Bal
is convinced that the narratological description of a text should be
seen as both a prerequisite for and impetus behind the interpretive
determination of its meaning:
An interpretation is never anything more than a proposal … . If a proposal is
to be accepted, it must be well founded … . If a proposal is based upon a pre-
cise description it can be discussed. The theory presented here is an instru-
ment for making descriptions and, as such, it inevitably but only indirectly
leads to interpretation.140
Statements of this kind should not be seen simply as attempts to ex-
plicate the programme of a descriptive narratology;141 they also give
an impression of the underlying position that is adopted when media
studies and the text-based disciplines make use of narrative theory
and individual concepts drawn from it.142
Without exception, the concept of the implied author has been re-
jected in descriptive narratology. The various objections that expo-
nents of this type of reception have advanced against Booth’s con-
cept, however, concern the external status of the implied author
rather than the internal nature of the concept itself—they simply
establish that the implied author is an interpretive category and thus
has no place in a narratology conceived of as a descriptive tool that
informs the study of epic texts.
The representatives of this type of reception do not normally jus-
tify their opinion of the implied author in any detail; for most of
them, it is self-evident that Booth’s concept does not belong in the
ambit of narratology.143 Genette, for example, mentions the implied
author in Narrative Discourse Revisited only because his disregard
for it in Narrative Discourse met with criticism on several occa-
sions.144 For him, the implied author is not a concept of narrative
theory, and he sees no reason to doubt this view. As far as narratol-
ogy is concerned, his position is expressed in the suggestion of ‘ex-
cluding from the narratological field not only the real author but
also the “implied” author, or more exactly the question … of his
existence’. Why? ‘Narratology has no need to go beyond the narra-
tive situation, and the two agents “implied author” and “implied
reader” are clearly situated in that “beyond”’.145
143 As Genette (1988, 137) puts it, ‘the “implied” author … does not, for me, lie
within the province of narratology’. (‘L’auteur “impliqué” … n’est pas pour
moi du ressort de la narratologie’; Genette 1983, 94). On this position, see
also Briosi (1986).
144 Rimmon-Kenan, for example, expressed such criticism in the review of the
Discourse to which we have already referred above (see Rimmon 1976, 57–
58).
145 Genette (1988, 137). (‘Une réponse commode consisterait … à exclure du
champ narratologique non seulement l’auteur réel, mais aussi l’auteur “im-
pliqué”, ou plus exactement la question ... de son existence’; ‘la narratologie
n’a pas à aller au-delà de l’instance narrative, et les instances de l’implied
author et de l’implied reader se situent clairement dans cet au-delà ; Genette
1983, 94).
110 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
146 See Bal (1981b, 209): ‘The term [“implied author”] denotes the “norms and
values of the text.” Those norms and values can be found by interpretation.’
147 Bal (1981b, 209).
148 Bal (1985, 119–20; emphasis in original).
149 Diengott (1988, 49) makes this particularly clear in her response to Susan S.
Lanser’s proposal for combining narratology and feminism: ‘Lanser is inter-
ested in interpretation, but narratology is a totally different activity’. On the
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 111
Diengott-Lanser dispute, see also Lanser (1986, 1988) and the overviews in
Nünning (1994), Prince (1996), Allrath (2000), Allrath and Gymnich (2002),
and Nünning and Nünning (2004).
150 See Hrushovsky (1976). Against the background of Hrushovsky’s systematic
outline, Diengott (1988, 43) remarks that ‘it seems to me that if this mapping
of the field within the study of literature is kept in mind, narratology belongs
under theoretical poetics’.
151 Diengott (1986/87, 1990), for example.
152 Diengott (1993a, 184).
153 Diengott (1993a, 189).
112 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
An abstract structural level of this kind subsumes the totality of all the struc-
tural relations of contrast and correspondence that are formed by the similari-
ties and differences between textual elements on the levels of communication
of the characters and the narrator. These relations of contrast and correspon-
dence constitute a virtual structure that is not realized until the process of re-
ception takes place.159
For a variety of reasons, Nünning’s remarks on the concept of the
‘whole work’ are not convincing.160 They leave open, for example,
the fundamental question of whether recipients identifying the
‘level of the entire work’ for a text determine only the structure of
that level or also its elements.161 The main reason why the ‘struc-
tural level of the entire text’ is not convincing as a replacement ca-
tegory for Booth’s implied author, however, lies less in the short-
comings of its definition than in the vagueness of its function. In-
tending to model a descriptive alternative concept to that of the im-
plied author, Nünning ends up with a category of dubious useful-
ness to the projects of describing and interpreting texts alike.
The concept of the ‘whole work’ is probably of little use in de-
scriptive literary analysis because the latter needs concepts that al-
low textual structures to be determined unambiguously. Nünning’s
replacement category for the implied author, however, does not do
this: it stands for an unordered set of contrast and correspondence
relations that are potentially contradictory and have the potential to
reach unmanageable proportions. Nor would the concept of a su-
perordinate abstract structural level seem particularly well suited to
fulfilling the needs of textual interpretation. Nünning explicitly
159 Nünning (1993, 19). ‘Es handelt sich … um eine relationale und strukturelle
Kategorie, die die Beziehungen zwischen den Elementen eines Textes, eben
dessen Gesamtstruktur, bezeichnet. Eine solche abstrakte Strukturebene um-
faßt die Summe aller strukturellen Kontrast- und Korrespondenzbezüge, die
sich durch die Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede zwischen textuellen Ele-
menten auf den Kommunikationsebenen der Figuren und des Erzählers erge-
ben. Diese Kontrast- und Korrespondenzrelationen bilden eine virtuelle
Struktur, die erst im Rezeptionsprozeß realisiert wird’ (my translation).
160 Nünning (1993 18). ‘Werkganze[s]’ (my translation).
161 ‘Ebene des Gesamtwerkes’ (my translation). For details, see Kindt and Mül-
ler (1999, 275 n. 7).
114 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
points out that the category he puts forward has the advantage of
being ‘of considerable benefit to interpretive applications’,162 some-
thing that Booth’s concept lacks. In the process, however, Nünning
overlooks the fact that making a vague concept more precise does
not necessarily increase its usefulness in a theoretical context. In-
deed, as the ‘whole work’ concept shows, precisely the opposite can
be the case: Nünning’s suggestion is essentially based on a modifi-
cation of the definition of Booth’s concept that does not seem par-
ticularly remarkable. The basic idea of his explication is that the
concept of the abstract structural level should stand only for the sum
of all the elements of and structures in a text, not for the principle
behind their selection and arrangement.163 Now, it is not hard to see
that a category conceived of in this way has a more precise defini-
tion than the concept of the implied author and that its use can in
principle be better controlled than that of the latter. But it is equally
clear that it cannot be used as a replacement for Booth’s concept in
the context of textual interpretation. Reconstructing the ‘whole
work’ of a text amounts to the same thing as comprehensively de-
scribing its basic structures; identifying the implied author of a
work, however, involves going further than this and discovering the
rhetorical plan behind the work.164 Nünning’s alternative category,
in other words, gains the ability to be used in a transparent manner
by abandoning the very claim that makes the implied author so po-
pular in interpretive contexts, the claim that it is possible to derive
from the description of textual structures the idea that underlies the
composition of a text.165
What I am suggesting is that once one accepts the logic of paying attention
only to the ‘implied’ part of the term not only is any confusion clarified but
the term is applicable within the interpretive activity and is extremely useful
in discussing literary works. … Why retain the term and not change it? For
practical reasons—it is familiar and has proved useful in many practical dis-
cussions of texts.168
The uses of Booth’s concept outside the context of textual descrip-
tion are examined in considerably greater detail by Genette in his
Narrative Discourse Revisited. Starting from the belief that the im-
plied author, as a sophisticated cross-generic category, does not
have a place in narratology, he sets out to investigate whether it
might nonetheless be possible, perhaps even necessary, to make use
of the concept in literary and interpretation theory. Genette’s ap-
proach to this question is based on two main principles. First, like
most commentators on the implied author, he assumes that the im-
plied author is not a sender involved in textual communication;169
rather, he believes, Booth’s concept should be understood as an
image of the author apprehended by the reader, ‘as an image of the
(real) author constructed by the text and perceived of as such by the
reader’.170 Second, Genette’s treatment is based on the belief that a
concept defined in this way can be legitimately used only if identi-
fying the implied author of a text is distinguished from reconstruct-
ing its real author: ‘Logically speaking … an image has no features
that are distinct (from those of its model) and thus deserves no spe-
cial mention, unless it is unfaithful—that is, incorrect.’171
These two assumptions provide the foundation for Genette’s as-
sessment of the relevance of Booth’s concept to literary theory. He
proceeds by discussing various forms of literary communication in
which there is a mismatch between the reader’s author-construct on
the one hand and the actual author of the text and his intentions on
the other. In Genette’s view, there are two basics ways in which
misconstruction of author-images can arise: discrepancy between
the constructed author and the real author of a work, he says, results
either from the ‘competence of the reader’ or from the ‘performance
of the (real) author’.172
Genette’s first case, that of reader-induced incongruence between
the recipient’s author-image and the real author, occurs when re-
cipients develop a false picture of a work’s author because they lack
certain linguistic, historical, or cultural knowledge. Genette reports
that this phenomenon can be observed again and again in the recep-
tion history of individual texts but is not, however, a convincing
reason to assume the presence of an implied author—we are dealing
here with the behaviour of empirical readers, whereas he believes
that the discussions of interpretation theory should be oriented
around the concept of an ideally competent recipient: ‘That does not
necessarily mean … superhuman intelligence, but a minimum of
ordinary perspicuity and a good mastery of the codes involved, in-
cluding, of course, language.’173
Genette treats the second case, that of author-induced incongru-
ence between the recipient’s author-image and the real author, in
somewhat more detail. Such mismatches occur when writers use
171 Genette (1988, 141). ‘En bonne logique …, une image n’a de traits distincts
(de ceux de son modèle), et donc ne mérite une mention spéciale, que si elle
infidèle, c’est-à-dire incorrecte’ (Genette 1983, 97).
172 Genette (1988, 141, 142). ‘Compétence du lecteur’; ‘performance de l’auteur
(réel)’ (Genette 1983, 98).
173 Genette (1988, 141). ‘Cela ne signifié pas nécessairement … une intelligence
surhumaine, mais un minimum de perspicacité banale, et une bonne maîtrise
des codes en jeu, dont bien sûr la langue’ (Genette 1983, 98).
118 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
174 Genette (1988, 142) speaks of an ‘unfaithful image’ (‘image infidèle’; Ge-
nette 1983, 98).
175 Genette (1988, 142, 144; italics in original). ‘Révélation involontaire …
d’une personnalité inconsciente’; ‘simulation volontaire, par l’auteur réel et
dans son œuvre, d’une personnalité différente de sa personnalité réelle’ (Ge-
nette 1983, 98–99; italics in original).
176 Suggesting that involuntary revelation occurs in a text does not, of course,
commit us to a specific mode of interpretation; the phenomenon can be men-
tioned in intentionalistic, trans-intentionalistic, and non-intentionalistic read-
ings (see Strube 2000 on these types of interpretation).
177 Genette (1988, 143). ‘IA’, of course, stands for ‘implied author’, ‘RA’ for
‘real author’. ‘AI = AR’; ‘Exit AI’ (Genette 1983, 99).
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 119
183 See, for example, the essays in Iseminger (1992a), Jannidis et al. (1999), or
Detering (2002).
184 On distinguishing intentionalism from psychologism and biographism, see
Hirsch (1967), Danneberg and Müller (1983), and Kindt and Müller (2002).
186 See 2.2 above.
186 On communication theory, see, from the point of view of narrative theory,
Petersen (1980), and the essays in Hass and König (2003) for a more general
perspective; on the aesthetics of reception, see, for programmatic statements,
Warning (1975), Suleiman and Crosman (1980), or Tompkins (1980), and,
for retrospective historical treatments, Holub (1984), Müller (1988), or, most
recently, Adam (2003).
122 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
187 Eco (1990b, 44). ‘Dagli inizi degli anni sessanta in avanti si sono così molti-
plicate le teorie sulla coppia Lettore-Autore, e oggi abbiami, oltre all narra-
tore e al narrataririo, narratori semiotici, narratori extrafittizi, soggetti della
enunciazione enunciata, focalizzatori, voci, metanarratori, e poi lettori virtu-
ali, lettori ideali, lettore modello, superlettori, lettore progettati, lettore infor-
mati, arcilettori, lettore impliciti, metalettori e via dicendo’ (Eco 1990a, 16).
188 Although the many competing author models have rarely (only in Stecker
1987, 258–72; 1997, 188–205) been considered together to date, the spec-
trum of reader models put forward in the past few decades has received sev-
eral comparative treatments. Iser (1978, 27–38) is an early example; more re-
cently, see Wilson (1981, 848–63) and, for a report on the current situation,
Rabinowitz (1995, 382–401).
189 Other author constructs like, for example, the “created author” (Hix 1990,
163–193), the “scriptor” (Kirby 1992, 4–5), ”the “urauthor” (Irwin 2002,
194–195) or the “represented author” (Bortolussi and Dixon 2003, 74–77;
2004, 318) cannot be considered here.
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 123
One concept competing with the implied author that has attracted
considerable attention and found widespread use in the study of
literature is the Model Author. This category was put forward by
Umberto Eco and is a key concept in the theory of interpretation
that he drew up in his 1979 monograph Lector in fabula and has
subsequently elaborated in a series of studies and lectures.190 The
belief that texts present us with intentionally structured and thus
strategically composed wholes is crucial to Eco’s approach:
We could say … that a text is a product whose interpretation must be part of
the true mechanism of its creation: bringing a text into being means pursuing
a strategy in which the moves another person is expected to make are taken
into consideration—as is indeed the case in any strategy.191
From this assertion Eco derives two further assumptions that are
essential to his model of the interpretation of fictional and factual
texts. With his 1962 collection of essays on the philosophy of art,
190 The following works are of particular importance in the subsequent develop-
ment of the Lector in fabula (Eco 1979a) approach: the collection of essays
in The Limits of Interpretation (Eco 1990b; I limiti dell’interpretazione, Eco
1990a), and two books based on lecture series, Interpretation and Overinter-
pretation (Eco 1992a) and Six Walks in the Fictional Woods (Eco 1994).
Overviews of Eco’s work and its evolution can be found in, for example,
Burkhardt/Rohse (1991), Mersch (1993), Capozzi (1997a), Kindt and Müller
(2000), Schalk (2000), Schultze-Seehof (2001), Bremer (2002), and Musarra
(2002).
191 Eco (1979a, 54; emphasis in original). ‘Possiamo dire … che un testo è un
prodotto la cui sorte interpretativa deve far parte del proprio meccanismo
generativo: generare un testo significa attuare una strategia di cui fan parte le
previsioni delle mosse altrui—come d’altra parte in ogni strategia’ (my trans-
lation).
124 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
195 Eco (1992a, 23). On this objective, see also Eco (1968, 165; 1990b, 6).
196 Eco (1992a, 88). An alternative formulation of this view can be found in Eco
(1992a, 78): ‘Between the unattainable intention of the author and the argu-
able intention of the reader there is the transparent intention of the text’. On
this position, see also Eco (1979a, 79–80; 1992b, 820).
126 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
what is uttered instead.197 Lying behind the line taken by Eco’s the-
ory here is the assumption that texts, as strategically arranged
wholes, anticipate that their recipients will work with them in par-
ticular ways. Depending on one’s perspective, the anticipated mode
of interaction can be understood as being put forward by a Model
Author or as constituting the role of a Model Reader. Thus, these
two concepts are introduced in an attempt to use communication
theory to illustrate the idea that an unambiguous basic meaning can
be found for any text as long as it is read with reference to the lexi-
con and world knowledge of the time in which it originated. Eco, in
other words, introduces the concepts of the Model Author and the
Model Reader as entities to which he can attribute what he has de-
scribed as textual strategy for a long time and referred to as the in-
tention of the text or ‘intentio operis’ since the mid-1980s.198 Eco
summarizes his ideas about the participants in communication he
has introduced by stating in Lector in fabula
that a Model Author is present as an interpretive hypothesis when the subject
of the textual strategy that emerges from the text under consideration enters
into a configuration, and not when it is felt that there is an empirical subject
behind the text that had the intention, or thought about, or perhaps thought
about intending to say something other than what the text—in terms of the
codes with which it operates—says to its Model Reader.199
Eco’s response to the Modern Language Notes special issue Swing-
ing Foucault’s Pendulum make clear that he arrives at this picture
of textual communication by considering one and the same thing
197 On this distinction, see Eco (1979a, 61). ‘Emittente e Destinatario sono pre-
senti nel testo non tanto come poli dell’atto di enunciazione quanto come
ruoli attanziali dell’enunciato’ (my translation).
198 On defining the two terms in this way, see, for example Eco (1979, 76–77;
1990b, 48–49).
199 Eco (1979a, 64). ‘Per ora potremmo limitarci a concludere che si ha Autore
Modello come ipotesi interpretativa quando ci si configura il soggetto di una
strategia testuale, quale appare dal testo in esame e non quando ipotizza, die-
tro alla strategia testuale, un soggetto empirico che magari voleva o pensava
o voleva pensara cose diverse da quello che il testo, commisurato ai codici
cui si riferisce, dice al proprio Lettore Modello’ (my translation). What Eco
means by ‘enters into a configuration’ is not entirely clear.
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 127
203 Eco (1990b, 46). ‘Il primo cha ha parlato esplicitamente di “implied author
(carrying the reader with him)” è stato Wayne Booth nel 1961 con il suo The
rhetoric of fiction’ (Eco 1990a, 17).
204 See 1.2.3 above.
205 See 1.2.3 above. An example of Eco’s uncertainty regarding the status of his
position can be found in Eco (1979a, 87–88).
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 129
214 See, for example, Kahrmann et al. (1977), Paschen (1991), Mangels (1994),
Burdorf (1997), Rooy (1997), Schlickers (1997), Hühn and Schönert (2002),
or Schönert (2004).
215 See Schmid (1973, 17–38) for the relevant passage in the original German
text, Der Textaufbau in den Erzählungen Dostoevskijs, and Schmid (1974,
1986, 1999, 2005) for examples of Schmid’s subsequent work in this area.
216 Schmid (1973, 23). ‘Sowohl der Autor als das Subjekt der das einzelne Werk
hervorbringenden schöpferischen Akte und als der Träger der das Werk im
ganzen bestimmenden Intentionen als auch der Adressat, den das Werk zu
seiner idealen Erfassung fordert und voraussetzt, dessen Rezeption folglich
im Werk vorherbestimmt ist, sind dem Werk mitgegeben’ (my translation).
217 On the abstract reader, not considered in further detail here, see Schmid
(2005, 65–72).
132 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
The abstract author can … be defined as the principle because of which the
layers of sound-form, meaning, and the represented concrete objects, as well
as the aesthetic organization and hierarchy of these layers in the overall
structure of a work, have the form they do and no other.218
As this general definition of the concept suggests, we should not be
too quick in drawing conclusions from the context in which it is
introduced. Schmid, for example, presents his concept in the context
of a communicative model of epic texts, but, unlike the real author
or the fictive narrator, only in a figurative sense does he see it a
participant in the literary communication process. Schmid writes on
this matter that ‘in so far as the abstract author is not a represented
entity, not even a single word of the narrative text can be attributed
to him. … He has no voice of his own, no text. His word is the en-
tire text on all its levels’.219 Thus, the abstract author is really a se-
mantic concept modelled as a pragmatic entity solely for illustrative
purposes.220 Consequently, we should, as Reinhard Ibler highlights,
bear in mind that ‘communication takes place … through the ab-
stract author and abstract reader but does not take place between
them’.221
The passages from the concept’s presentation quoted above also
make clear that, even though Schmid conceives of the abstract au-
thor as an element in a communicative model of narrative works, he
218 Schmid (1973, 24). ‘Der abstrakte Autor läßt sich … definieren als dasjenige
Prinzip, das in einem Werk die sprachlautliche Schicht, die Bedeutungs-
schicht und die Schicht der dargestellten Gegenständlichkeiten sowie ästheti-
sche Organisation und Hierarchie dieser Schichten in der Gesamtstruktur so
und nicht anders beschaffen sein läßt’ (my translation).
219 Schmid (2005, 14–15). ‘Insofern der abstrakte Autor keine dargestellte In-
stanz ist, kann man ihm kein einzelnes Wort im Erzähltext zuschreiben. … Er
hat keine eigene Stimme, keinen Text. Sein Wort ist der ganze Text mit allen
seinen Ebenen’ (my translation). On this, see also 2.2.2 above.
220 See Schmid (1986, 303).
221 Ibler (2004, 73; emphasis in original). ‘Die Kommunikation läuft … über
abstrakten Autor und abstrakten Leser, findet aber nicht zwischen ihnen statt’
(my translation). Ibler’s remarks on the abstract reader sidestep Schmid’s
definition of the concept—see Ibler (2004, 73) and, in contrast, Schmid
(2005, 65–69).
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 133
227 Schmid (2005, 56, 62). ‘Indiziales signifié’; ‘das semantische Zentrum’;
‘jenen Punkt, in dem alle schöpferischen Linien des Werks zusammenlaufen’
(my translations).
228 Schmid (1973, 24). ‘Wenn Wayne C. Booth den “implied author” einführt
und die russische Erzähltheorie mit dem—wohl auf Vinogradov zurückge-
henden—Begriff des “Autorbildes” (“obraz avtora”) operiert, so ist in beiden
Termini diejenige Instanz gemeint, die ich abstrakter Autor nenne’ (my
translation). See also Schmid (2005, 56–61).
229 See 1.2.3 and 2.3.1 above.
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 135
230 Schmid (2005, 65; our emphasis). ‘Ein vom konkreten Leser gebildetes Kon-
strukt des konkreten Autors’ (my translation). On this position, see also
Schmid (1996).
231 Willem Weststeijn also points out this lack of clarity in his consideration of
Schmid’s model—see Weststeijn (1984) and, in response, Schmid (1986).
232 Schmid (1999, 8). ‘Vom Leser hypostasierte Instanz, in der alle Bedeutungs-
potentiale des Werks konvergieren’ (my translation).
233 A different view on this matter is developed in Schmid (1987).
136 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
stract author is present not just for every reader but even for every reading
act.234
Like Booth, Schmid is concerned with modelling a concept that can
draw together a multiplicity of heterogeneous aspects of literary
communication processes. And, as in the case of the implied author,
so too with the abstract author, this attempt leads to a concept
whose definition and usage remain unclear.
die aufzuspüren allein der Interpretation vorbehalten bleibt’ (Iser 1970, 6–7).
On this idea, see most recently Iser (2006, 58–60).
240 Iser’s discussion is particularly indebted to Ingarden’s The Literary Work of
Art (Ingarden 1931) and The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art (Ingarden
1936).
241 Iser’s highly problematic concept of the literary text, which he has deter-
minedly clung to, despite clear objections, cannot be considered here. On the
concept itself, see most recently Iser (1983, 1991); regarding the criticism di-
rected at it, see for example Rühling (1996) or Zipfel (2001).
242 See, for example, Iser (1971, 6–10; 1975, 326–28; 1978, 23–27, 53–85). See
also, Richter (1996, 523), and Abbott (2002, 83–88).
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 139
net. Damit ist zweierlei gesagt: 1. Die Struktur kann und wird historisch im-
mer unterschiedlich besetzt sein. 2. Der implizite Leser meint den im Text
vorgezeichneten Aktcharakter des Lesens und nicht eine Typologie mögli-
cher Leser’ (Iser 1972, 8–9).
247 Iser (1978). The German original, Der Akt des Lesens, was published in 1976
(Iser 1976).
248 Iser (1978, 35). ‘Nun ist der literarische Text nicht nur eine perspektische
Hinsicht des Autors auf die Welt, er ist selbst ein perspektivisches Gebilde,
durch das sowohl die Bestimmtheit dieser Hinsicht als auch die Möglichkeit,
sie zu gewärtigen, entsteht. Dieser Sachverhalt läßt sich am Roman paradig-
matisch veranschaulichen. Er besitzt eine perspektivische Anlage, die aus
mehreren deutlich voneinander abhebbaren Perspektivträgern besteht, die
durch den Erzähler, die Figuren, die Handlung (plot) sowie die Leserfiktion
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 141
gesetzt sind. Bei aller hierarchischen Abstufung, die zwischen den Textper-
spektiven herrschen mag, ist doch keine von ihnen ausschließlich mit dem
Sinn des Textes identisch. Vielmehr markieren sie in der Regel unterschiedli-
che Orientierungszentren im Text, die es aufeinander zu beziehen gilt, damit
der ihnen gemeinsame Verweisungszusammenhang konkret zu werden ver-
mag. Insoweit ist dem Leser eine bestimmte Textstruktur vorgegeben, die ihn
nötigt, einen Blickpunkt einzunehmen, der die Integration der Textperspekti-
ven herzustellen erlaubt’ (Iser 1976, 61–62).
249 Iser (1978, 38). ‘Transzendentales Modell’ (Iser 1976, 66). In the conversa-
tion with Booth and Holland mentioned above, Iser remarks in this sense that
his model allows the ‘assessment and evaluation of actual readers’ responses
to a literary text’ (Booth et al. 1980, 61).
250 See, for example, Iser (1974, 111–13; 1978, 36–37).
251 See, for example, Chatman (1978, 151).
252 See 1.2.3 above.
142 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
lel functions rather than complementing each other can also be seen
from the way they are used in interpretive practice, in which one or
the other is usually employed but rarely both together.253 In short,
the implied author and the implied reader would seem to present us
with competing rather than complemental concepts, to be two
different ways of modelling the basic meaning of texts.254
Not only are the expectations associated with the implied reader
the same as those attached to the implied author; Iser’s ideas on the
appellative structure of literary texts also show similar weaknesses
to those in Booth’s treatment of the central concept of the Rhetoric
of Fiction. In both cases, there is a lack of conceptual clarity and an
insufficiently precise consideration of how the concept in question
can be applied in practice.255
Iser considers the status and function of the implied reader in
considerable detail, but his treatment of its definition is glaringly
nondescript in comparison, being almost entirely restricted to ex ne-
gativo characterizations of the concept. Iser is primarily concerned
with rebutting two understandings of the implied reader that have
surfaced again and again in the intense discussion surrounding the
concept: the suggestion that it be explicated as a component of an
intentionalistic theory of interpretation on the one hand,256 and at-
tempts to characterize it with reference to the programme of histori-
cal semantics on the other.257 Iser clearly treats both approaches as
misguided; he has not, however, in his many responses to the ques-
tions, objections, and suggestions of his critics explained exactly
what he does mean by the implied reader and the idea that it is the
transcendental precondition of a text’s reception. A not insignificant
253 Consider, for example, the textual analyses in Booth (1961) or Iser (1974).
254 See also Nünning (1993, 8–9).
255 See 1.2.3 above.
256 See for example Link (1973), Gumbrecht (1975), or Groeben (1982), and
Iser’s hostility to it in Iser (1975, 334–35). See also the critical commentary
on the concept of the ‘intended reader’ (Wolff 1971) in Iser’s The Act of
Reading (Iser 1978).
257 See most recently Vollhardt (2003); Iser’s opposition to it is set out in Iser
(1978, 28–30).
Between Interpretation Theory and Narratology 143
reason for this may well be the fact that he gives his concept, and
with it his phenomenology of reception, the same special position
between the description and interpretation of texts as that so often
associated with the implied author.258
As well failing to clarify the definition of the implied reader,
Iser’s work in this area also fails to explain the methodology to be
used when identifying it in practice. He repeatedly and explicitly
distances his approach, one of literary theory, from empirical stud-
ies of reading, but nowhere in his work does he specify what rules
should be followed or what requirements have to be satisfied when
determining the implied reader of a work. This makes it much
harder to put the concept and the far-reaching claims that accom-
pany it to the test in practice. Consequently, the way in which Iser
deals with texts frequently comes across as no less subjective and
esoteric than the ‘Art of Interpretation’ from which he hopes to es-
cape by studying the relationship between textual structures and
acts of reception.259
258 This is particularly clear in the controversy between Iser und Stanley Fish
(see Booth et al. 1980, Fish 1981, Iser 1981, Bérube 2004). See also 2.2 and
2.3.1 above.
259 See, for example, Iser (1984, iii).
144 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
there are also certain features that place them in a group of their
own. More precisely, most author concepts put forward in response
to Booth’s implied author in the context of, say, aesthetics, inter-
pretation theory, and fictionality theory differ both in their presen-
tation and in what they claim to achieve from categories such as the
Model Author, the abstract author, and the implied reader. However
much they may differ in detail, the group of author concepts with
which we are here concerned all have in common the fact that they
do not aim to replace Booth’s concept in all its meanings. Rather,
they are modelled on the assumption that by explicating certain
components of the implied author, we can develop concepts that
allow us to describe certain individual aspects of the meaning and
interpretation of literary texts. This difference in the aim behind the
concepts is, as a rule, also reflected in their presentation: the author
models developed in the context of aesthetics and literary theory are
generally defined more clearly and applied in a more perspicuous
way than the alternative categories that originate in the context of
structuralism, rhetoric, and reception theory.260
These general points cannot be explored in further detail here;
however, we hope to illustrate them in the following brief consid-
eration of three well-known concepts that have emerged from this
kind of response to Booth’s implied author. Our examples here are
Kendall Walton’s apparent artist, Gregory Currie’s fictional author,
and Alexander Nehamas’s postulated author.261
Kendall Walton introduced the concept of the apparent artist in
the context of his attempt to explicate the category of style, as popu-
lar in aesthetics and the disciplines of cultural studies as it is
vague.262 Setting himself apart from the long-standard position,
Walton suggests that the style of artistic artefacts can be determined
convincingly only if their making or the fact of their being made is
263 Walton (1979, 80). On this idea, see also the treatment of the concept of style
in Robinson (1984, 1985), who, however, does draw on the implied author
concept.
264 Walton (1976, 51; italics in original). See also Walton (1979, 84; 1990, 370).
265 ‘I have pretended so far that what it is for something to appear to have been
made in a certain manner is unproblematic. But nothing is further from the
truth’ (Walton 1979, 88).
266 Walton (1979, 90).
146 The Reception of the Implied Author Concept
the text provides these clues only against a background of assumptions for
which there might be no warrant in the text itself.270
In order to prevent different fictional authors being found for a sin-
gle text by different readers with different individual prior assump-
tions, Currie includes a crucial restriction in his remarks on the con-
cept: the fictional author of a work is the subject possessing the be-
lief system that an informed contemporary recipient would have
sensibly believed to be held by a credible mediating entity commu-
nicating the world of the text.271
Whereas the concepts of Walton and Currie are intended to ex-
plain specific aspects of how we deal with works of art, that put
forward by Alexander Nehamas is so extensive in scope that it is
essentially very similar to Booth’s implied author. Nehamas intro-
duced the postulated author as part of an attempt to combine two
views originally adopted in very different contexts in literary the-
ory. On the one hand, he draws on Michel Foucault’s famous piece
‘What Is an Author?’. Above all, the key point for Nehamas here is
the idea that an author should be understood as ‘a projection, in
more or less psychologizing terms, of the operations that we force
texts to undergo, the connections that we make, the traits that we
establish as pertinent, the continuities that we recognize, or the ex-
clusions that we practice’.272 On the other hand, Nehamas’s work on
the author concept also makes use of an approach to the content of
literary texts outlined in William Tolhurst’s important essay ‘On
What a Text Is and How It Means’. Here, Nehamas takes up the
idea that the meaning of a work consists of the intentions that a
well-informed representative of the intended group of readers would
be most justified to ascribe to the writer of the text.273 Developing
these ideas of Foucault and Tolhurst, Nehamas characterizes the
concept of the postulated author—referred to as the author for rea-
sons of simplicity—as follows in his 1981 essay ‘The Postulated
Author: Critical Monism as a Regulative Idea’:
… as the author is not identical with a text’s fictional narrator, so he is also di-
stinct from its historical writer. The author is postulated as the agent whose
actions account for the text’s features; he is a character, a hypothesis which is
accepted provisionally, guides interpretation, and is in turn modified in its
light. The author, unlike the writer, is not a text’s efficient cause but, so to
speak, its formal cause, manifested in though not identical with it.274
On the basis of this description, it is tempting to conclude that the
postulated author is simply the implied author under a different
name. A closer examination of the way Nehamas treats the concept,
however, soon shows that this is not the case. First, his postulated
author is clearly distinguished from the implied author by the fact
that it is defined as an author-construct formed by the reader of a
text. The contrast between the implied author and the postulated
author is made clear when Nehamas writes that the postulated au-
thor is not to be understood as at once ‘the product of the text and
the creation of the writer’,275 thus openly excluding from his defini-
tion one of the central precepts of Booth’s concept. Second, there is
a clear methodological difference between Nehamas’s treatment of
the postulated author and most appraisals of the implied author.
After introducing his concept, Nehamas adds the following remark:
A methodological constraint on this view is that the postulated author be his-
torically plausible; the principle is that the text does not mean what its writer
could not, historically, have meant by it. … What a writer could mean can be
determined by linguistic or biographical considerations but also by facts about
the history of literature and the world, psychology, anthropology, and much
else besides.276
Having looked briefly at the suggestions of Walton, Currie, and
Nehamas regarding the partial clarification of Booth’s concept, we
shall now outline a more comprehensive explication of the implied
author in the second part of this book.
We have now considered in some detail the ways in which the im-
plied author has been defined and used during the past four decades;
in the following pages, we turn to the question of how it should be
treated in future. In the process, we shall be guided not, as previ-
ously, by the main contexts in which the concept has been received
but rather by the dominant types and subtypes among the ways of
modelling it that have been put forward. Three competing sugges-
tions are involved here, according to which Booth’s concept should
be defined either as a pragmatic category, as a semantic category, or
as a category of reception psychology. Our study will focus on pro-
posals that suggest seeing the implied author in pragmatic or se-
mantic terms, as a participant in communication or a subject identi-
fied as source of meaning respectively. The discussion of these ap-
proaches to modelling the concept begins by looking at how they
can be conceptually and methodologically fleshed out, and then
considering whether they represent, or at least provide the basis for,
a clarification of Booth’s concept itself.
Bearing in mind the reconstructions of the concept’s use set out
above, it should come as little surprise to learn that our discussion
will not provide a straight yes-or-no answer to ‘Exit IA?’, the ques-
tion inspired by Gérard Genette and posed in the title to this chap-
ter.1 If there is anything to be learnt from the stories of concepts
such as those we are dealing with here, it lies in the insight that cer-
tain prominent concepts in cultural studies are used not because of
their suitability but rather in spite of their unsuitability—because,
that is, they make it possible to articulate certain beliefs and inten-
tions that are clearly deeply rooted in the scholarly community. One
suspects this is why the implied author concept has proved resistant
to all demonstrations of terminological inadequacy and attempts to
do away with it up to the present point in time, and why it will in all
likelihood continue to do so until less problematic formulations are
found for the beliefs and intentions behind it.
As our analysis of the concept’s history has shown, making use
of the implied author reflects a wide range of intuitions which are
perfectly plausible when considered separately but which conflict
with one another when combined together in a single concept. Sup-
port for many of these ideas is equally widespread; thus, because
there is no single idea that is clearly favoured above the rest, an ex-
plication that suggests focusing on one particular component of the
concept’s meaning is unlikely to have much chance of being widely
accepted. When dealing with concepts such as the implied author, it
is more practical to clarify them by identifying different key aspects
and then explicating the latter separately from one another.2 For this
reason, the analysis and discussion of the implied author presented
in this book will not end with any one proposal for abandoning,
replacing, or redefining the concept. Instead, we shall draw our re-
flections to a close with a series of conceptual, methodological, and
terminological suggestions that we hope will overcome the anoma-
lies of the implied author yet still take suitable theoretical account
of the various ideas bound up with Booth’s concept.
2 On this approach, see Kindt and Müller (1999, 286–87), Müller (2000, 145–
48), and Kindt (2004, 59–60).
Exit IA? 153
tively plausible but as yet empirically untested’ (‘eine zwar intuitiv plausible,
empirisch bislang aber nicht überprüfte Hypothese’; my translations). On
this, see also Heinen (2002, 334–36).
6 Genette (1988, 141). ‘Elle me semble correspondre à mon expérience de lec-
ture: je lis, par exemple, Joseph et ses frères, j’y entends un voix, celle du
narrateur fictif, quelque chose (?) me dit que cette voix n’est pas celle de
Thomas Mann, et je construis tant bien que mal, et si possible sans exploiter
trop d’indications extratextuelles, derrière l’image explicite de ce narrateur
naïf et dévot, l’image, impliquée par cette fiction, de son auteur, que je sup-
pose a contrario lucide et “libre penseur”’ (Genette 1983, 97).
Exit IA? 155
the same type. In the case of attributions involving the author and
the narrator, we are dealing with the assumption of causal relations:
the text is brought forth by the author, and the narrative report is
brought forth by the narrator. The author and narrator, that is to say,
are to be understood as sources of utterances. In the case of attribu-
tions involving the implied author, however, we are dealing with the
assumption of a semantic relation. Strictly speaking, we cannot say
that the implied author brings forth anything. It should be seen not
as the source of an utterance but as a placeholder for its meaning.
And this means that the assumed or actual causal link to an utter-
ance that allows the author and narrator to be referred to as senders
or speakers is not present in the case of the implied author. The real
status of the idea that the implied author be understood as a partici-
pant in communication is revealed in Genette’s comment that ‘a
narrative of fiction is produced fictively by its narrator and actually
by its (real) author’.12
Comments of this kind do not cast doubt on the assumption that
the implied author has a function in literary communication; they
simply suggest it is erroneous to use the role of the author or the
narrator in the relevant processes as a model for understanding that
of the implied author. Correspondingly, the arguments with which
we are here concerned usually lead to redefinition of the implied au-
thor rather than rejection of it. The arguments involved have helped
to establish the view that Booth’s concept can be described as a par-
ticipant in communication only in a metaphorical sense, not a literal
one, and thus that it should be understood as a semantic concept
rather than a pragmatic one.13 Michael J. Toolan takes such a posi-
tion when he writes that ‘the implied author is a real position in
12 Genette (1988, 139). ‘Un récit de fiction est fictivement produit par son nar-
rateur, et effectivement par son auteur (réel); entre eux, personne ne travaille’
(Genette 1983, 96).
13 The remarks of Rimmon-Kenan (1983, 86–88) in Narrative Fiction have un-
doubtedly helped to encourage this view.
158 Possibilities for Explicating the Implied Author
The quotation from Toolan at the end of the last section expresses
the view that the implied author should be understood as a postu-
lated subject to which aspects of the text are attributed rather than a
sender in the communication process. This standpoint has become a
widespread consensus in discussions of the concept over the years,15
but the debate is still far from reaching agreement about exactly
how the concept should be modelled. The fact is that treating the
implied author as a subject in this way is theoretically compatible
with a wide range of divergent positions, and is also a strategy
adopted in several markedly heterogeneous forms in practice. Our
discussion of this approach and its contribution to the explication of
the implied author must therefore begin by distinguishing between
the basic ways in which Booth’s concept can be understood as an
entity to which some aspect of a text is ascribed. In making these
distinctions, we shall be guided by the question of how the object
and process of ascription can be determined in detail.
Before we turn to the variants of the position in question, though,
we should point out that choosing to model the concept in this man-
ner also points towards a certain way of responding to it. Even if
treatments of the implied author as a postulated subject to which
some aspect of the text is ascribed can differ considerably from one
another, the text-based reconstructions that they attribute to the con-
14 Toolan (1988, 78; emphasis in original). See 2.2.2 above on other positions
of this kind.
15 See 2.2.2 above on this position, its variants, and its supporters.
Exit IA? 159
Uif!jnqmjfe!bvuips!bt!b!qptuvmbufe!tvckfdu!cfijoe!uif!ufyu
opo.joufoujpobmjtujd!npefmt joufoujpobmjtujd!npefmt
The vast majority of proposals for clarifying the implied author con-
cept to date see themselves, some rightly, some wrongly, as contri-
butions to a programme of non-intentionalistic interpretation. Advo-
cates of such an explication see the concept as standing in the anti-
intentionalistic tradition of twentieth-century literary theory. The
concept of the implied author, they believe, should be understood as
a reaction to an insight originating in the famous essay ‘The Inten-
tional Fallacy’ by Monroe C. Beardsley and William K. Wimsatt
and summarized as follows by Seymour Chatman in his book Com-
ing to Terms: ‘Authors sometimes mean one thing but their texts
another.’30 Taking this thesis as their starting point, non-intentio-
nalistic explanations of the implied author always end up proposing
that Booth’s concept be seen as emerging from a form of literary
analysis that asks not what an author wanted to say but only what
his text means. Those who advocate modelling the concept in this
way, however, are less agreed as to the exact objective that this kind
of analysis should have and what should be aimed for when iden-
tifying the implied author as part of it. The various non-intention-
alistic suggestions for clarifying Booth’s concept, that is to say, can
be assigned to one of two classes according to whether they see
work meaning in terms of pragmatism or conventionalism.
(1) Supporters of the pragmatism-based variant of this approach
to modelling the implied author believe that the content of a text lies
in the meanings that can be attributed to it.31 In this context, the
results of study of a text have only to meet the following two re-
quirements in order to provide us with its work meaning and thus its
implied author: they must be free of internal contradiction and must
with the implied author of the drama. There are two reasons for this.
First, reconstructions of a work’s implied author generally involve
contextual references to the situation of the empirical author. If we
are not simply to ignore this central aspect of the concept’s use and
meaning, we must construct the implied author of Hamlet as, in
some sense at least, a contemporary of Shakespeare, and this means
that we cannot see him as adopting the views of modern psycho-
analysis.35 Attempting to attribute a contradiction-free psychoana-
lytic interpretation of Hamlet to the implied author of the text is also
ill-judged because many alternative interpretations of the drama
could be developed along similar lines. Assuming they were also
free of contradiction, these interpretations could then be ascribed to
further implied authors.36 If we think through the pragmatism-based
definition of the concept to its end, in other words, we arrive at the
highly counterintuitive conclusion that every work has as many im-
plied authors as there are contradiction-free meanings that can be
ascribed to it.
(2) In comparison to the pragmatist group, the conventionalist
supporters of non-intentionalistic elucidation of the concept make
distinctly more exacting demands when it comes to determining the
implied author of a literary text. Their views are based on the intui-
tion that reconstructing work meaning does not simply mean mak-
ing an interpretive attribution of meaning that contradicts neither it-
self nor the text under consideration. Instead, advocates of a con-
ventionalist form of explication believe that Booth’s concept should
be identified with the historical meaning of a literary work. For
them, in other words, determining the implied author of a text re-
quires that the text concerned be read with the help of the lexicon of
the time in which it originated and against the background of the
culture of that time. In the eyes of the conventionalists, then, a non-
intentionalistic approach to literature need not, and in fact should
At first glance, it may seem as if there has not yet been any serious
attempt to model the implied author along the lines described at the
end of the preceding paragraph; to date, hardly any work on Booth’s
concept has been explicitly concerned with explicating it in an in-
tentionalistic manner. H. Porter Abbott may write in his Cambridge
41 This position is widely held in the debates of interpretation theory, but it has
also attracted repeated criticism (see, for example, Nathan 1982, 1992, Dickie
and Wilson 1995, or Dickie 2006).
42 See Livingston (1996, 116–17).
43 On the concept of context and the methods of contextualization, see Danne-
berg (1990, 2000).
168 Possibilities for Explicating the Implied Author
46 See especially Hirsch (1967, 1976, 1983) and also Danneberg and Müller
(1983).
47 Carroll (1993, 245).
48 See, for example, Lyas (1992), Jannidis (2000), Livingston (2003, 2005a), or
Vandevelde (2005).
49 Stecker (1997, 201).
170 Possibilities for Explicating the Implied Author
50 On the debate surrounding the identity thesis, see Hirsch (1967, 1984),
Beardsley (1970, 1982), and Dickie and Wilson (1995). If nothing else, it
should be noted here that the standard understanding of Hirsch’s identity the-
sis in current practice is tenuous in the extreme (see Danneberg and Müller
1983, 1984b).
51 Lintott (2002, 67).
52 On these two positions, see Dutton (1987), Carroll (1992, 1993, 1997, 2000a,
2002), Currie (2003, 2004a), Levinson (1992, 1996, 2002), Nehamas (1981,
1987), Iseminger (1992b, 1996, 1998), Livingston (1996, 1998, 2003,
2005a), Nathan (1992, 2005, 2006), Stecker (1987, 1997, 2006), Trivedi
(2001), Lintott (2002), Davies (2006), and Lamarque (2000, 2004). For the
sake of simplicity, we shall not distinguish between moderate and radical
supporters of these two forms of intentionalism in the following discussion.
Exit IA? 171
55 On this distinction, see above all Levinson (1992, 188–89) and Dutton (1987,
198–99).
56 Tolhurst (1979, 11). See Tolhurst and Wheeler (1979) for further details on
this way of understanding a work. A detailed appraisal of Tolhurst’s ideas
can be found in Danneberg and Müller (1983, 393–97).
57 Levinson (1996a, 184). Levinson coins the term ‘literances’ to refer to utter-
ances that can be classified as literary texts.
Exit IA? 173
58 See, for example, Levinson (1992, 227–29). For a detailed response to these
ideas, see Stecker (1997, 197–99).
59 Levinson (2002, 313). See also Nehamas (1981, 145–46) or Levinson (1996a,
185–86).
174 Possibilities for Explicating the Implied Author
60 On this, see for example Levinson (1992, 225): ‘if we can, in a given case,
make the author out to have created a cleverer or more striking or more ima-
ginative piece, without violating the image of his work as an artist …, we
should perhaps do so. That is then our best projection of intent—“best” in
two senses—as informed and sympathetic readers.’
Exit IA? 175
66 This term was introduced by Nathan (1992, 199). The expression ‘inferred
author’, frequently considered as an alternative term, is misleading—it is
equally suitable for referring to the subject to which are attributed the results
of an interpretation based on actual intentionalism (see 3.3.2 below). The al-
ternative terms ‘text intention’ (‘Textintention’) and ‘narrative strategy’ (‘Er-
zählstrategie’; my translations) considered in Kindt and Müller (1999) are
also liable to be misunderstood and should therefore be avoided. They sug-
gest associations with concepts whose scope is clearly narrower than the ex-
plication of the implied author outlined here (see also 2.3 above).
67 See Nehamas (1981). The central differences between Booth’s implied author
and the concept Nehamas puts forward are set out in Nehamas (1987, 273–
74).
68 The term appears for the first time in Iseminger’s essay ‘Actual Intentional-
ism vs. Hypothetical Intentionalism’ (see Iseminger 1996, 319).
Exit IA? 177
The first part of our study considered the context in which the im-
plied author concept took shape, some typical ways in which it has
been received, and some proposals that have been put forward for
replacing it. This led up to the second part of the book, in which we
have explicated the components of the concept and suggested one
way in which it could be used in future. The discussions in the first
part were important in shaping the insight behind our explication,
namely the awareness that the implied author concept consists of
components that express correct intuitions in and of themselves, yet
80 See most recently Booth (2005). This view should be clearly distinguished
from reception theory’s idea of the author-image (see 1.2.3. and 3.1 above).
Exit IA? 181
Abbott 2002
H. Porter Abbott: The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP 2002.
Abrams 1998
M. H. Abrams: The Transformation of English Studies. In: Thomas Bender
and Carl E. Schorske (eds.): American Academic Culture in Transforma-
tion. Fifty Years, Four Disciplines. Princeton: Princeton UP 1998, 123-
149.
Aczel 1998
Richard Aczel: Hearing Voices in Narrative Texte. In: NLH 29 (1998),
467-500.
Adam 2003
Wolfgang Adam et al. (eds.): Wissenschafts- und Systemveränderung. Re-
zeptionsforschung in Ost und West – eine konvergente Entwicklung? Hei-
delberg: Winter 2003 (Beihefte zum Euphorion 44).
Allrath 1998
Gaby Allrath: “But why will you say that I am mad?” Textuelle Signale für
die Ermittlung von unreliable narration. In: Nünning 1998a, 59-79.
Allrath 2000
Gaby Allrath: A Survey of the Theory, History, and New Areas of Re-
search of Feminist Narratology. In: LWU 33:4 (2000), 387-410.
Allrath and Gymnich 2002
Gaby Allrath and Marion Gymnich: Feministische Narratologie. In: Nün-
ning and Nünning 2002a, 35-72.
Anderson and Valente 2002
Amanda Anderson and Joseph Valente (eds.): Disciplinarity at the Fin de
Siècle. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton UP 2002.
Antczak 1995a
Frederick J. Antczak (ed.): Rhetoric and Pluralism. Legacies of Wayne C.
Booth. Columbus: Ohio State UP 1995.
Antczak 1995b
Frederick J. Antczak: Introduction. In: Antczak 1995a, 1-15.
Aristotle Poetics
Aristotle: Poetics. Trans. with intro. and notes by Malcolm Heath. London:
Penguin 1986.
186 Works Cited
Aristotle Physics
Aristotle: Physics. Ed. with intro. by David Bostock, trans. Robin Water-
field. Oxford: Oxford UP 1999.
Arnold and Detering 1996
Heinz Ludwig Arnold and Heinrich Detering (eds.): Grundzüge der Lite-
raturwissenschaft. München: dtv 1996.
Artz 1995
Lee Artz: Bibliography: Wayne C. Booth. In: Antczak 1995a, 309-322.
Baah 1999
Robert Baah: Rethinking Narrative Unreliability. In: JLS 28:3 (1999), 180-
188.
Bal 1981a
Mieke Bal: Notes on Narrative Embedding. In: Poetics Today 2:2 (1981),
41-59.
Bal 1981b
Mieke Bal: The Laughing Mice – or: On Focalization. In: Poetics Today
2:2 (1981), 202-210.
Bal 1985
Mieke Bal: Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto,
Buffalo and London: Toronto UP 1985.
Bal 2002
Mieke Bal: Travelling Concepts in the Humanities. A Rough Guide. To-
ronto, Buffalo and London: Toronto UP 2002.
Baker 1977
John Ross Baker: From Imitation to Rhetoric. The Chicago Critics, Wayne
C. Booth and Tom Jones. In: Spilka 1977, 136-156.
Barsch et al. 1994
Achim Barsch et al.: Empirische Literaturwissenschaft in der Diskussion.
Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp 1994.
BartoszyĔski 1973
Kazimierz BartoszyĔski: Das Problem der literarischen Kommunikation in
narrativen Werken. In: Sprache im technischen Zeitalter 47 (1973), 202-
224.
Beardsley 1970
Monroe C. Beardsley: The Authority of the Text. In: M. C. B.: The Possi-
bility of Criticism. Detroit: Wayne State UP 1970, 16-37.
Beardsley 1982
Monroe C. Beardsley: Intentions and Interpretations: A Fallacy Revived.
In: M. C. B.: The Aesthetic Point of View: Selected Essays. Ithaca and
London: Cornell UP 1982, 188-207.
Beebe 1961/62
Maurice Beebe: Through a Glass Darkly (Review Booth 1961). In: Mo-
dern Fiction Studies 7:4 (1961/62), 373-374.
Works Cited 187
Berman 1988
Art Berman: From the New Criticism to Deconstruction: The Reception of
Structuralism and Post-Structuralism. Urbana Ill.: Illinois UP 1988.
Bérube 2004
Michael Bérubé: There Is Nothing Inside the Text, or, Why No One’s
Heard of Wolfgang Iser. In: Gary A. Olson and Lynn Worsham (eds.):
Postmodern Sophistry: Stanley Fish and the Critical Enterprise. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press 2004, 11-26.
Blackmur 1951
R. P. Blackmur: The Lion and the Honeycomb. In: The Hudson Review
3:4 (1951), 487-507.
Blaim and Gruszweska 1994
Artur Blaim and Ludmila Gruszweska: Implied Authors, Implied Readers,
Implied Texts: A Modest Proposal. In: Grazyna Bystydzienska et al. (eds.):
Focus on Literature and Culture. Papers from the 2nd Conference of the
Polish Association for the Study of English. Lublin: Maria Curie-Skáo-
dowska UP 1994, 145-155.
Bode 1995
Christoph Bode: Art. The Rhetoric of Fiction. In: Renner and Habekost
1995, 333-335.
Booth 1952
Wayne C. Booth: The Self-Conscious Narrator in Comic Fiction before
Tristram Shandy. In: PMLA 67 (1952), 163-185.
Booth 1961
Wayne C. Booth: The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: Chicago UP 1961.
Booth 1967
Wayne C. Booth: Introduction. In: Crane 1967, xiii-xxii.
Booth 1968
Wayne C. Booth: “The Rhetoric of Fiction” and the Poetics of Fictions. In:
Spilka 1977, 77-89.
Booth 1970
Wayne C. Booth: Now Don’t Try to Reason with Me. Essays and Ironies
for a Credulous Age. Chicago and London: Chicago UP 1970.
Booth 1974
Wayne C. Booth: A Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago and London: Chicago UP
1974.
Booth 1979
Wayne C. Booth: Critical Understanding. The Powers and Limits of Plu-
ralism. Chicago and London: Chicago UP 1979.
Booth 1982
Wayne C. Booth: Between Two Generations: The Heritage of the Chicago
School. In: Profession 82 (1982), 19-26.
188 Works Cited
Booth 1983a
Wayne C. Booth: Afterword to the Second Edition: The Rhetoric in Fiction
and Fiction as Rhetoric: Twenty-One Years Later. In: W. C. B.: The Rhe-
toric of Fiction. 2nd ed. Chicago and London: Chicago UP 1983, 399-457.
Booth 1983b
Wayne C. Booth: Rhetorical Critics Old and New. The Case of Gerard
Genette. In: Lerner 1983, 123-141.
Booth 1988
Wayne C. Booth: The Company We Keep. Ethical Criticism and the Ethics
of Reading. Berkeley: California UP 1988.
Booth 1995
Wayne C. Booth: Afterword: Let Us All Mount Our Good Chargers,
Whatever Their Names, and Gallop Off Joyfully in All Directions, a Mys-
teriously United Company Serving the Empress of All the Sciences, Rhe-
toric. In: Antczak 1995a, 279-308.
Booth 1996
Wayne C. Booth: Where is the Authorial Audience in Biblical Narrative –
and in other ‘Authoritative’ Texts? In: Narrative 4:3 (1996), 233-253.
Booth 1997
Wayne C. Booth: The Struggle To Tell the Story of the Struggle To Get
the Story Told. In: Narrative 5:1 (1997), 50-59.
Booth 1998a
Wayne C. Booth: Confessions of an Aging, Hypocritical Ex-Missionary.
In: Sunstone 21:1 (1998), 25-36.
<www.lds-mormon.com/booth.html>
Booth 1998b
Wayne C. Booth: The Ethics of Teaching Literature. In: College English
61:1 (1998), 41-55.
Booth 1998c
Wayne C. Booth: Why Banning Ethical Criticism Is a Serious Mistake. In:
Philosophy and Literature 22 (1998), 366-393.
Booth 2001a
Wayne C. Booth: Literary Criticism and the Pursuit of Character. In: Lit-
erature and Medicine 20:2 (2001), 97-108.
Booth 2001b
Wayne C. Booth: Letter to Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller, 25th of
October 2001.
Booth 2002
Wayne C. Booth: Is There an “Implied” Author in Every Film? In: College
Literatur 29:2 (2002), 124-131.
Booth 2004
Wayne C. Booth: The Rhetoric of Rhetoric. The Quest for Effective Com-
munication. Oxford: Blackwell 2004.
Works Cited 189
Booth 2005
Wayne C. Booth: Resurrection of the Implied Author: Why Bother? In:
Phelan and Rabinowitz 2005, 75-88.
Booth et al. 1977
Wayne C. Booth et al.: In Defense of Authors and Readers. In: Novel. A
Forum on Fiction 11:1 (1977), 5-25.
Booth et al. 1980
Wayne C. Booth et al.: Interview: Wolfgang Iser. In: Diacritics 10:2
(1980), 57-74.
Bortolussi and Dixon 2003
Marisa Bortolussi and Peter Dixon: Psychonarratology: Foundations for
the Empirical Study of Literary Response. Cambridge: Cambridge UP
2003.
Bortolussi and Dixon 2004
Peter Dixon and Marisa Bortolussi: Methods and Evidence in Psychonar-
ratology and the Theory of the Narrator: Reply to Diengott. In: Narrative
12:3 (2004), 317-325.
Bosonnet 1970
Felix R. Bosonnet: Anglo-amerikanische Literaturwissenschaft. In: Felix
Philipp Ingold (ed.): Literaturwissenschaft und Literarurkritik im 20. Jahr-
hundert. Bern: Kandelaber 1970, 35-84.
Brackert and Stückrath 1981
Helmut Brackert and Jörn Stuckrath (eds.): Literaturwissenschaft: Grund-
kurs. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt 1981.
Branigan 1992
Edward Branigan: Narrative Comprehension and Film. London: Routledge
1992.
Bremer 2002
Thomas Bremer: Schwerpunkt: Umberto Eco. Tübingen: Stauffenburg-
Verlag 2002.
Briggs 2002
Richard S. Briggs: The Implied Author and the Creation of the World. A
Test Case in Reader-Response Criticism. In: The Expository Times 113:8
(2002), 264-269.
Briosi 1986
Sandro Briosi: La narratologie et la question de l’auteur. In: Poetique 17
(1986), 507-519.
Bronzwaer 1978
Wilhelmus J. M. Bronzwaer: Implied Author, Extradiegetic Narrator and
Public Reader. Gerard Genette’s Narratological Model and the Reading
Version of Great Expectations. In: Neophilologus 62 (1978), 1-18.
Bronzwaer 1981
Wilhelmus J. M. Bronzwaer: Mieke Bal’s Concept of Focalization: A Cri-
tical Note. In: Poetics Today 2:2 (1981), 193–201.
190 Works Cited
Brooks 1947
Cleanth Brooks: The Well Wrought Urn: Studies in the Structure of Po-
etry. New York: Harcourt, Brace, World 1947.
Brubacher and Rudy 1997
John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy: Higher Education in Transition. A
History of American Colleges and Universities. 4th ed. New Brunswick and
London: Transaction Publishers 1997.
Bühler 2003
Axel Bühler: Interpretieren – Vielfalt oder Einheit? In: Jannidis et al. 2003,
169-181.
Burkhardt and Rohse 1991
Armin Burkhardt and Eberhard Rohse (eds.): Umberto Eco: Zwischen Li-
teratur und Semiotik. Braunschweig: Ars et scientia 1991.
Burdorf 1997
Dieter Burdorf: Einführung in die Gedichtanalyse. Stuttgart and Weimar:
Metzler 1997.
Burke 1943
Kenneth Burke: The Problem of the Intrinsic (as Reflected by the Neo-Ar-
istotelian School). In: Accent. A Quarterly of New Literature 3:2 (1943),
80-94.
Burke 1992
Seán Burke: The Death and Return of the Author. Criticism and Subjectiv-
ity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP 1992.
Busch 1998
Dagmar Busch: Unreliable Narration aus narratologischer Sicht: Bau-
steine für ein erzähltheoretisches Analyseraster. In: Nünning 1998a, 41-58.
Carlshamre and Petterson 2003
Staffan Carlshamre and Anders Petterson: Types of Interpretation in the
Aesthetic Disciplines. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s UP 2003.
Carnap 1950
Rudolf Carnap: Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: Chicago UP
1950.
Capozzi 1997a
Rocco Capozzi (ed.): Reading Eco: An Anthology. Bloomington, Ind.:
Indiana UP 1997.
Capozzi 1997b
Rocco Capozzi: Interpretation and Overinterpretation: The Rights of
Texts, Readers and Implied Authors. In: Capozzi 1997a, 217-234, 417-
420.
Carroll 1992
Noël Carroll: Art, Intention, and Conversation. In: Iseminger 1992a, 97-
131.
Works Cited 191
Carroll 1993
Noël Carroll: Anglo-American Aesthetics and Contemporary Criticism:
Intention and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion. In: JAAC 51:2 (1993), 254-
252.
Carroll 1997
Noël Carroll: The Intentional Fallacy: Defending Myself. In: JAAC 55:3
(1997), 305-309.
Carroll 2000a
Noël Carroll: Interpretation and Intention: The Debate between Hypotheti-
cal and Actual Intentionalism. In: Metaphilosophy 31:1/2 (2000), 76-95.
Carroll 2000b
Noël Carroll: Introduction. In: Noël Carroll (ed.): Theories of Art Today.
Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press 2000, 3-24.
Carroll 2002
Noël Carroll: Andy Kaufman and the Philosophy of Interpretation. In:
Krausz 2002, 320-344.
Cascardi 1987
Anthony J. Cascardi: Literature and the Question of Philosophy. Balti-
more: Johns Hopkins UP 1987.
Chatman 1969
Seymour Chatman: New Ways of Analyzing Narrative Structure. In: Lan-
guage and Style 2 (1969), 3-36.
Chatman 1971
Seymour Chatman: The Structure of Fiction. In: University Review 37
(1971), 190-214.
Chatman 1975
Seymour Chatman: The Structure of Narrative Transmission. In: Roger
Fowler (ed.): Style and Structure in Literature. Essays in New Stylistics.
Ithaca and New York: Cornell UP 1975, 213-257.
Chatman 1978
Seymour Chatman: Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fiction and
Film. Ithaca and London: Cornell UP 1978.
Chatman 1988
Seymour Chatman: On Deconstructing Narratology. In: Style 22:1 (1988),
9-17.
Chatman 1990a
Seymour Chatman: Coming to Terms. The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction
and Film. Ithaca and London: Cornell UP 1990.
Chatman 1990b
Seymour Chatman: What Can We Learn from a Contextualist Narratol-
ogy? In: Poetics Today 11:2 (1990), 309-328.
Christadler 1963
Martin Christadler: Review Booth 1961. In: Germanistik 4 (1963), 37.
192 Works Cited
Danneberg 1999
Lutz Danneberg: Zum Autorkonstrukt und zu einem methodologischen
Konzept der Autorintention. In: Jannidis et al. 1999, 77-105.
Danneberg 2000
Lutz Danneberg: Art. Kontext. In: Harald Fricke (ed.): Reallexikon der
deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. Bd. 2. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter
2000, 333-336.
Danneberg and Müller 1981
Lutz Danneberg and Hans-Harald Müller: Probleme der Textinterpretation.
Analytische Rekonstruktion und Versuch einer konzeptionellen Lösung.
In: Kodikas/Code 3:2 (1981), 133-168.
Danneberg and Müller 1983
Lutz Danneberg and Hans-Harald Müller: Der “intentionale Fehlschluß” –
ein Dogma? Systematischer Forschungsbericht zur Kontroverse um eine
intentionalistische Konzeption in den Textwissenschaften. In: ZfaW 14
(1983), 103-137, 376-411.
Danneberg and Müller 1984a
Lutz Danneberg and Hans-Harald Müller: Wissenschaftstheorie, Herme-
neutik, Literaturwissenschaft. Anmerkungen zu einem unterbliebenen und
Beiträge zu einem künftigen Dialog über die Methodologie des Verste-
hens. In: DVjs 58 (1984), 177-237.
Danneberg and Müller 1984b
Lutz Danneberg and Hans-Harald Müller: On Justifying the Choice of
Interpretive Theories. A Critical Examination of E. D. Hirsch’s Arguments
in Favor of an Intentionalist Theory of Interpretation. In: JAAC 43 (1984),
7-16.
Darby 2001
David Darby: Form and Context: An Essay in the History of Narratology.
In: Poetics Today 22 (2001), 829-852.
Darby 2003
David Darby: Form and Context Revisited. In: Poetics Today 24 (2003),
423-437.
Davies 1996
David Davies: Fictional Truth and Fictional Authors. In: BJA 36:1 (1996),
43-55.
Davies 2006
David Davies: Art as Performance. Oxford: Blackwell 2006 (New Direc-
tions in Aesthetics).
DeReuck 1990a
Jenny DeReuck: Etching “Inconscience”: Unreliability as a Function in
Narrative Situations. In: Journal of Literary Studies 6 (1990), 289-303.
DeReuck 1990b
Jenny DeReuck: Stereoscopic Perspectives: Transmission and Reception in
Unreliable Homodiegetic Narration. In: AUMLA. Journal of the Austral-
Works Cited 195
asian Universities Language and Literature Association 74 (1990), 154-
168.
Detering 2002
Heinrich Detering (ed.): Autorschaft. Positionen und Revisionen. Stuttgart
and Weimar: Metzler 2002 (Germanistische Symposien 24).
Dickie 1997
George Dickie: Reply to Carroll. In: JAAC 55 (1997), 311-312.
Dickie 2006
George Dickie: Intentions: Conversations and Art. In: BJA 46:1 (2006),
70-81.
Dickie and Wilson 1995
George Dickie and W. Kent Wilson: The Intentional Fallacy: Defending
Beardsley. In: JAAC 53:3 (1995), 233-250.
Diengott 1986/87
Nilli Diengott: Goriot vs. Vautrin: A Problem in the Reconstruction of Le
Père Goriot’s System of Values. In: Nineteenth-Century French Studies 15
(1986/87), 70-76.
Diengott 1988
Nilli Diengott: Narratology and Feminism. In: Style 22 (1988), 42-51.
Diengott 1990
Nilli Diengott: Reliability in Narrative: Some Theoretical Issues. In: Lan-
guage and Style 23 (1990), 369-378.
Diengott 1993a
Nilli Diengott: Implied Author, Motivation and Theme and Their Problem-
atic Status. In: Orbis Litterarum 48 (1993), 181-193.
Diengott 1993b
Nilli Diengott: The Implied Author Once Again. In: JLS 22:1 (1993), 68-
75.
Diengott 1995
Nilli Diengott: Narration and Focalization – the Implications for the Issue
of Reliability in Narrative. In: JLS 24:1 (1995), 42-49.
Diengott 2004
Nilli Diengott: Some Problems with the Concept of the Narrator in Bor-
tolussi and Dixon’s Psychonarratology. In: Narrative 12:3 (2004), 306-
316.
Dietrichson 1963
Jan Dietrichson: The Criticism of Ronald S. Crane. In: Edda 63 (1963), 85-
117.
Dosse 1991
François Dosse: Geschichte des Strukturalismus. 2 vol. [vol 1: Das Feld
des Zeichens 1945-1966; vol. 2: Die Zeichen der Zeit 1967-1991]. Transl.
by Stefan Barmann. Hamburg: Junius 1996/97.
196 Works Cited
Dutton 1987
Denis Dutton: Why Intentionalism Won’t Go Away. In: Cascardi 1987,
194-210.
Eco 1962
Umberto Eco: Opera aperta. Milan: Bompiani 1962.
Eco 1968
Umberto Eco: La struttura assente. Milan: Bompiani 1968.
Eco 1976
Umberto Eco: A Theory of Semiotics. Critical Social Studies. Blooming-
ton: Indiana UP 1976.
Eco 1979a
Umberto Eco: Lector in fabula. La coperazione interpretativa nei test nar-
rativi. Milan: Bompiani 1979.
Eco 1979b
Umberto Eco: The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of
Texts. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana UP 1979.
Eco 1989
Umberto Eco: The Open Work. Trans. By Anna Cancogni, intro. by David
Robey. Cambridge: Harvard UP 1989.
Eco 1990a
Umberto Eco: I limiti dell’interpretazione. Milan: Bompiani 1990.
Eco 1990b
Umberto Eco: The Limits of Interpretation. Advances in Semiotics.
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana UP 1990.
Eco 1992a
Umberto Eco (with Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler, and Christine Brooke-
Rose): Interpretation and Overinterpretation. Ed. by Stefan Collini. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge UP 1992.
Eco 1992b
Umberto Eco: Reading My Readers. In: MLN 107 (1992), 819-827.
Eco 1994
Umberto Eco: Six Walks in the Fictional Woods. Cambridge, Mass. and
London: Harvard UP 1994.
Erzgräber 1970
Willi Erzgräber (ed.): Moderne englische und amerikanische Literaturkri-
tik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1970.
Ewen 1974
Joseph Ewen: Writer, Narrator, and Implied Author. In: Hasifrut 5: 18/19
(1974), VII-IX.
Fieguth 1973
Rolf Fieguth: Zur Rezeptionslenkung bei narrativen und dramatischen
Werken. In: Sprache im technischen Zeitalter 47 (1973), 186-201.
Works Cited 197
Finke 1982
Peter Finke: Konstruktiver Funktionalismus. Die wissenschaftstheoretische
Basis einer empirischen Theorie der Literatur. Braunschweig: Vieweg
1982.
Fish 1981
Stanley Fish: Why No One’s Afraid of Wolfgang Iser. In: Diacritics 11:1
(1981), 2-13.
Fludernik 2000
Monika Fludernik: Beyond Structuralism in Narratology: Recent Devel-
opments and New Horizons in Narrative Theory. In: Anglistik 11 (2000),
83-96.
Fludernik 2005
Monika Fludernik: Histories of Narrative Theory (II): From Structuralism
to the Present. In: Phelan and Rabinowitz 2005, 36-59.
Foucault 1969
Michel Foucault: What Is an Author? In: David Lodge and Nigel Wood
(eds.): Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader. 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman
2000, 174-187.
Fricke 2000
Harald Fricke: Begriffsgeschichte und Explikation in der Literaturwissen-
schaft. In: Scholtz 2000, 67-72.
Füger 1974
Wilhelm Füger: Zur Tiefenstruktur des Narrativen. Prolegomena zu einer
generativen Grammatik des Erzählens. In: Poetica 5 (1972), 268-292.
Geiger 1993
Roger Geiger: Research, Graduate Education, and the Ecology of Ameri-
can Universities: An Interpretive History. In: Sheldon Rothblatt and Björn
Wittrock (eds.): The European and American University since 1800. His-
torical and Sociological Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge UP 1993, 234-
259.
Genette 1972
Gérard Genette: Discours du récit. Essai de méthode. In: G. G.: Figures III.
Paris: Seuil 1972, 65-292.
Genette 1980
Gérard Genette: Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca and
New York: Cornell UP 1980.
Genette 1983
Gérard Genette: Nouveau discours du récit. Paris: Seuil 1983.
Genette 1988
Gérard Genette: Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca and New York:
Cornell UP 1988.
Genette 1990
Gérard Genette: Fictional Narrative, Factual Narrative. In: Poetics Today
11 (1990), 755-774.
198 Works Cited
Gibson 1950
Walker Gibson: Authors, Speakers, Readers, and Mock Readers. In: Col-
lege English 11 (1950), 265-269.
Glicksberg 1951
Charles I. Glicksberg (ed.): American Literary Criticism: 1900-1950. New
York: Hendricks House 1951.
Goebel 1999
Eckart Goebel: Stationen der Erzählforschung in der Literaturwissenschaft.
In: Eberhard Lämmert (ed.): Die erzählerische Dimension. Eine Gemein-
samkeit der Künste. Berlin: Akademie Verlag 1999, 4-33.
Goldsmith 1979
Arnold L. Goldsmith: American Literary Criticism: 1905-1965. Boston:
Twayne Publishers 1979.
Goldman 1990
Alan A. Goldman: Interpreting Art and Literature. In: JAAC 48 (1990),
205-214.
Gomel 2004
Elana Gomel: Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, and the
(Un)Death of the Author. In: Narrative 12:1 (2004), 74-92.
Graff 1987
Gerald Graff: Professing Literature. An Institutional History. Chicago and
London: Chicago UP 1987.
Groeben 1982
Norbert Groeben: Leserpsychologie: Textverständnis – Textverständlich-
keit. Münster: Aschendorff 1982.
Groden and Kreiswirth 1994
Michael Groden and Martin Kreiswirth (eds.): The Johns Hopkins Guide
to Literary Theory and Criticism. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins UP 1994.
Grünzweig and Solbach 1999
Walter Grünzweig and Andreas Solbach (eds.): Grenzüberschreitungen:
Narratologie im Kontext. Transcending Boundaries: Narratology in Con-
text. Tübingen: Narr 1999.
Guerin et al. 1992
Wilfred L. Guerin et al. (eds.) : A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Lit-
erature. 3rd ed. New York and Oxford: Oxford UP 1992.
Gumbrecht 1975
Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht: Konsequenzen der Rezeptionsästhetik oder Lite-
raturwissenschaft als Kommunikationssoziologie. In: Poetica 7 (1975),
388-413.
Hale 1998
Dorothy J. Hale: Social Formalism. The Novel in Theory from Henry
James to the Present. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford UP 1998.
Works Cited 199
Hass and König 2003
Ulrike Haß and Christoph König (eds.): Literaturwissenschaft und Linguis-
tik von 1960 bis heute. Göttingen: Wallstein 2003 (Marbacher Wissen-
schaftsgeschichte 4).
Hehir 1963/64
Diana O. Hehir: Review Booth 1961. In: JAAC 22 (1963/64), 487-488.
Heinen 2002
Sandra Heinen: Das Bild des Autors. Überlegungen zum Begriff des “im-
pliziten Autors” und seines Potentials zur kulturwissenschaftlichen Be-
schreibung von inszenierter Autorschaft. In: Sprachkunst 33 (2002), 329-
345.
Heinen 2006
Sandra Heinen: Literarische Inszenierung von Autorschaft. Geschlechts-
spezifische Autorschaftsmodelle in der englischen Romantik. Trier: WVT
2006 (ELCH – Studies in English Literary and Cultural History 17).
Hempfer 1977
Klaus W. Hempfer: Zur pragmatischen Fundierung der Texttypologie. In:
Walter Hinck (ed.): Textsortenlehre – Gattungsgeschichte. Heidelberg:
Winter 1977, 1-26.
Herman 1999
David Herman (ed.): Narratologies: New Perspectives in Narrative Analy-
sis. Columbus: Ohio State UP 1999.
Herman 2005
David Herman: Histories of Narrative Theory (I): A Genealogy of Early
Developments. In: Phelan and Rabinowitz 2005, 19-35.
Herman et al. 2005
David Herman et al. (eds.): Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory.
London: Routledge 2005.
Hermerén 1983
Göran Hermerén: Interpretation. Types and Criteria. In: Grazer Philoso-
phische Studien 19 (1983), 131-161.
Hirsch 1967
Eric Donald Hirsch: Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale UP 1967
Hirsch 1976
Eric Donald Hirsch: The Aims of Interpretation. Chicago: Chicago UP
1976.
Hirsch 1983
Eric Donald Hirsch: The Politics of Interpretation. In: W. J. T. Mitchell
(ed.): The Politics of Interpretation. Chicago and London: Chicago UP
1983, 321-333.
Hirsch 1984
Eric Donald Hirsch: Criticism and Countertheses. On Justifying Interpre-
tive Norms. In: JAAC 43 (1984), 89-91.
200 Works Cited
Hix 1990
H. L. Hix: Morte d’Author. An Autopsy. Philadelphia: Temple UP 1990.
Hof 1980
Renate Hof: Das Spiel des “unreliable narrator” in Nabokovs Lolita. In:
Amerikastudien 25:4 (1980), 418-431.
Hof 1984
Renate Hof: Das Spiel des “unreliable narrator”. Aspekte unglaubwürdigen
Erzählens im Werk von Vladimir Nabokov. München: Fink 1984 (Ameri-
can Studies 59).
Holub 1984
Robert C. Holub: Reception Theory. A Critical Introduction. London and
New York: Methuen 1984.
Hrushovsky 1976
Benjamin Hrushovsky: Poetics, Criticism, Science: Remarks on the Fields
and Responsibilities of the Study of Literature. In: PTL. A Journal for De-
scriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976), iii-xxxv.
Hühn and Schönert 2002
Peter Hühn and Jörg Schönert: Zur narratologischen Analyse von Lyrik.
In: Poetica 34 (2002), 287-305.
Ibler 2004
Reinhard Ibler: Literarische Kommunikation und (Nicht-)Intentionalität.
In: Lazar Fleishman et al. (ed.): Analysieren als Deuten. Wolf Schmid zum
60. Geburtstag. Hamburg: Hamburg UP 2004, 67-84.
Ingarden 1931
Roman Ingarden: The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation on the Bor-
derlines of Ontology, Logic, and Theory of Literature. Evanston: North-
western UP 1973.
Ingarden 1936
Roman Ingarden: The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art. Evanston:
Northwestern UP 1979.
Irwin 2002
William Irwin: Intentionalism and Author Constructs. In: W. I. (ed.): The
Death and Resurrection of the Author, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press
2002, 191-203
Iseminger 1992a
Gary Iseminger (ed.): Intention and Interpretation. Philadelphia: Temple
UP 1992.
Iseminger 1992b
Gary Iseminger: An Intentional Demonstration. In: Iseminger 1992a, 76-
96.
Iseminger 1996
Gary Iseminger: Actual Intentionalism vs. Hypothetical Intentionalism. In:
JAAC 54:4 (1996), 319-326.
Works Cited 201
Iseminger 1998
Gary Iseminger: Interpretive Relevance, Contradiction and Compatibility
with the Text: A Rejoinder to Knight. In: JAAC 56 (1998), 58-61.
Iser 1968
Wolfgang Iser: Der Leser als Kompositionselement im realistischen Ro-
man. Wirkungsästhetische Betrachtung zu Thackerays Vanity Fair. In:
Bernhard Fabian and Ulrich Suerbaum (eds.): Festschrift für Edgar Mert-
ner. München: Fink 1968, 273-292.
Iser 1970
Wolfgang Iser: Die Appellstruktur der Texte. Unbestimmtheit als Wir-
kungsbedingung literarischer Prosa. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag 1970.
Iser 1971
Wolfgang Iser: Indeterminacy and the Reader’s Response in Prose Fiction.
In: J. Hillis Miller (ed.): Aspects of Narrative: Selected Papers from the
English Institute. New York and London: Columbia UP 1971, 1-45.
Iser 1972
Wolfgang Iser: Der implizite Leser. Kommunikationsformen des Romans
von Bunyan bis Beckett. München: Fink 1972.
Iser 1974
Wolfgang Iser: The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose
Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins
UP 1974.
Iser 1975
Wolfgang Iser: Im Lichte der Kritik. In: Warning 1975, 325-342.
Iser 1976
Wolfgang Iser: Der Akt des Lesens. Theorie ästhetischer Wirkung. Mün-
chen: Fink 1976.
Iser 1978
Wolfgang Iser: The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response.
London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1978.
Iser 1981
Wolfgang Iser: Talk Like Whales: A Reply to Stanley Fish. In: Diacritics
11:3 (1981), 82-87.
Iser 1983
Wolfgang Iser: Akte des Fingierens oder Was ist das Fiktive im fiktionalen
Text? In: Dieter Henrich and Wolfgang Iser (eds.): Funktionen des Fikti-
ven. München: Fink 1983 (Poetik und Hermeneutik 10), 121-151.
Iser 1984
Wolfgang Iser. Der Akt des Lesens. Theorie ästhetischer Wirkung. 2nd ed.
München: Fink 1984.
Iser 1991
Wolfgang Iser: Das Fiktive und das Imaginäre. Perspektiven literarischer
Anthropologie. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp 1991.
202 Works Cited
Iser 2006
Wolfgang Iser: How to Do Theory. Oxford: Blackwell 2006 (How to Stu-
dy Literature 1).
Jahn 1995
Manfred Jahn: Narratologie: Methoden und Modelle der Erzähltheorie. In:
Ansgar Nünning 1995, 29-50
Jahn 1998
Manfred Jahn: Package Deals, Exklusionen, Randzonen: das Phänomen
der Unverläßlichkeit in der Erzählsituation. In: Nünning 1998a, 81-106.
Jahn and Nünning 1994
Manfred Jahn and Ansgar Nünning: A Survey of Narratological Models.
In: LWU 27 (1994), 283-303.
Jahraus 1994
Oliver Jahraus: Analyse und Interpretation. Zu Grenzen und Grenzüber-
schreitungen im struktural-literaturwissenschaftlichen Theorienkonzept.
In: IASL 19:2 (1994), 1-51.
Janik 1973
Dieter Janik: Die Kommunikationsstruktur des Erzählwerks. Ein semiolo-
gisches Modell. Bebenhausen: Rotsch 1973 (Thesen und Analysen 3).
Jannidis 1999
Fotis Jannidis: Der nützliche Autor. Möglichkeiten eines Begriffs zwi-
schen Text und historischem Kontext In: Jannidis et al. 1999, 353-389.
Jannidis 2000
Fotis Jannidis: Art. Intention. In: Harald Fricke et al. (ed.): Reallexikon der
deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. Bd. 2. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter
2000, 160-162.
Jannidis 2002
Fotis Jannidis: Zwischen Autor und Erzähler. In: Detering 2002, 540-556.
Jannidis 2004
Fotis Jannidis: Figur und Person. Beitrag zu einer historischen Narratolo-
gie. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter 2004 (Narratologia 3).
Jannidis et al. 1999
Fotis Jannidis et al. (eds.): Rückkehr des Autors. Zur Erneuerung eines
umstrittenen Begriffs. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1999 (Studien und Texte zur
Sozialgeschichte der Literatur 71).
Jannidis et al. 2003
Fotis Jannidis et al. (eds.): Regeln der Bedeutung. Berlin and New York:
de Gruyter 2003 (Revisionen – Grundbegriffe der Literaturtheorie 1).
Johnson 1953a
S. F. Johnson: “Critics and Criticism”. A Discussion. The Chicago Mani-
festo. In: JAAC 12 (1953), 248-257.
Johnson 1953b
S. F. Johnson: A Conterstatement. In: JAAC 12 (1953), 265-267.
Works Cited 203
Johnstone 1995
Monica Johnstone: Wayne Booth and the Ethics of Fiction. In: Antczak
1995a, 59-70.
Juhl 1980a
Peter D. Juhl: Life, Literature, and the Implied Author. In: DVjs 54 (1980),
177-203.
Juhl 1980b
Peter D. Juhl: Interpretation. An Essay in the Philosophy of Literary Criti-
cism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP 1980.
Kahrmann et al. 1977
Cordula Kahrmann et al.: Einführung in die Analyse von Erzähltexten.
Kronberg: Athenäum 1977.
Keast 1952
William R. Keast: Ronald S. Crane, Editor of Modern Philology, 1930-52.
In: Modern Philology 50:l (1952), 1-4.
Kiefer 2005
Alex Kiefer: The Intentional Model in Interpretation. In: JAAC 63 (2005),
271-281.
Kieran 2006
Matthew Kieran (ed.): Contemporary Debates in Aesthetics and the Phi-
losophy of Art. Oxford: Blackwell 2006.
Killham 1966
John Killham: The ‘Second Self in Novel’ Criticism. In: BJA 6 (1966),
272-290.
Kindt 2003
Tom Kindt: Die Quadratur des Typenkreises. Franz K. Stanzels Überle-
gungen zu einer Erzähltheorie für Leser (Review Stanzel 2002). In: IASL –
online (update, 26.3.2003).
<www.iasl.uni-muenchen.de>
Kindt 2004
Tom Kindt: “Erzählerische Unzuverlässigkeit” in Literatur und Film.
Überlegungen zu einem Begriff zwischen Narratologie und Interpreta-
tionstheorie. In: Herbert Hrachovec et al. (eds.): Kleine Erzählungen und
ihre Medien. Wien: Turia und Kant 2004, 55-66.
Kindt 2005
Tom Kindt: L’art de violer le contrat. Une comparaison entre la métalepse
et la non-fiabilité narrative. In: John Pier and Jean Marie Schaeffer (eds.):
Métalepses. Entorses au pacte de représentation. Paris: Édition de l’Ehess
2005 (Recherches d’histoire et de sciences sociales 108), 167-178.
Kindt and Müller 1999
Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller: Der “implizite Autor”. Zur Explika-
tion und Verwendung eines umstrittenen Begriffs. In: Jannidis et al. 1999,
273-287.
204 Works Cited
Leitch 1988
Vinvent B. Leitch: American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the
Eighties. New York: Columbia UP 1988.
Lerner 1983
Laurence Lerner: Reconstructing Literature. Oxford: Blackwell 1983.
Levinson 1992
Jerrold Levinson: Intention and Interpretation: A Last Look. In: Iseminger
1992a, 221-256.
Levinson 1996a
Jerrold Levinson: Intention and Interpretation in Literature. In: J. L.: The
Pleasures of Aesthetics. Philosophical Essays. Ithaca and London: Cornell
UP 1996, 175-213.
Levinson 1996b
Jerrold Levinson: Messages in Art. In: J. L.: The Pleasures of Aesthetics.
Philosophical Essays. Ithaca and London: Cornell UP 1996, 224-241.
Levinson 2002
Jerrold Levinson: Hypothetical Intentionalism: Statement, Objections, and
Replies. In: Krausz 2002, 309-318.
Levinson 2003
Jerrold Levinson (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. Oxford: Ox-
ford UP 2003.
Link 1973
Hannelore Link: “Die Appellstruktur der Texte” und ein ‘Paradigmen-
wechsel in der Literaturwissenschaft’. In: Jahrbuch der deutschen Schiller-
gesellschaft 17 (1973), 532-583.
Link 1976
Hannelore Link: Rezeptionsforschung. Eine Einführung in ihre Methoden
und Probleme. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1976.
Lintott 2002
Sheila Lintott: When Artists Fail: A Reply to Trivedi. In: BJA 42:1 (2002),
64-72.
Lipking and Litz 1972.
Lawrence L. Lipking and A. Walton Litz (eds.): Modern Literary Criticism
1900-1970. New York: Atheneum 1972.
Livingston 1996
Paisley Livingston: Arguing over Intentions. In: Revue Internationale de
Philosophie 198:4 (1996), 615-633.
Livingston 1998
Paisley Livingston: Intentionalism in Aesthetics. In: NLH 29 (1998), 831-
846.
Livingston 2003
Paisley Livingston: Intention in Art. In: Levinson 2003, 274-290.
Livingston 2005a
Paisley Livingston: Art and Intention. Oxford: Oxford UP 2005.
Works Cited 207
Livingston 2005b
Paisley Livingston: Texts, Works, Versions (with Reference to the Inten-
tions of Monsieur Pierre Menard). In: Livingston 2005a, 112-134.
Livingston 2005c
Paisley Livingston: Fiction and Fictional Truth. In: Livingston 2005a, 175-
207.
Lodge 1962
David Lodge: Review Booth 1961. In: The Modern Language Review 57
(1962), 580-581.
Lohner 1967
Edgar Lohner: Die Neu-Aristoteliker in Chicago. Einige grundsätzliche
Überlegungen zu Begriffen ihrer kritischen Theorie. In: Horst Meiler and
Hans Joachim Zimmermann (eds.): Lebendige Antike. Symposion für Ru-
dolf Sühnel. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag 1967, 528-541.
Long 1981
Maxine M. Long: To Good To Miss (Review Booth 1961). In: English
Journal (Oct., 1981), 67-68.
Lowes 1933
John Livingston Lowes: The Modern Language Association and Humane
Scholarship. In: PMLA 48 (1933), 1399-1488.
Ludwig 1982
Hans-Werner Ludwig (ed.): Arbeitsbuch Romananalyse. Tübingen: Narr
1982.
Lübbe 2003
Hermann Lübbe: Wortgebrauchspolitik. Zur Pragmatik der Wahl von Be-
griffsnamen. In: Carsten Dutt (ed.): Herausforderungen der Begriffsge-
schichte. Heidelberg: Winter 2003, 65-80.
Lyas 1992
Colin Lyas: Wittgensteinian Intentions. In. Iseminger 1992a, 132-151.
Maclean 1952
Norman Maclean: Episode, Speech, and Word. The Madness of Lear. In:
Crane et al. 1952, 595-615.
Maglioni et al. 1996
Joseph L. Maglioni et al.: A Taxonomy of Inference Categories that May
Be Generated during the Reading of Literary Texts. In: Roger J. Kreuz and
Mary Sue MacNealy (eds.): Empirical Approaches to Literature and Aes-
thetics. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publ. 1996, 201-220.
Mangels 1994
Annette Mangels: Zur Erzähltechnik im MahƗbhƗrata. Hamburg: Kovaþ
1994 (Poetica – Schriften zur Literaturwissenschaft 7).
Margolin 1981
Uri Margolin: On the ‘Vagueness’ of Critical Concepts. In: Poetics 10
(1981), 15-31.
208 Works Cited
Margolin 2003
Uri Margolin: Cognitive Science, the Thinking Mind, and Literary Narra-
tive. In: David Herman (ed.): Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sci-
ences. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford UP 2003, 271-294.
Margolis and Laurence 1999
Eric Margolis and Stephen Laurence (eds.): Concepts. Core Readings.
Cambridge and London: MIT Press 1999.
Margolis 1968
Joseph Margolis: Describing and Interpreting Works of Art. In: Francis J.
Coleman (ed.): Contemporary Studies in Aesthetics. New York: McGraw-
Hill 1968, 176-193.
Margolis 1989
Joseph Margolis: Reinterpreting Interpretation. In: JAAC 47 (1989), 237-
251.
Martin 1986
Wallace Martin: Recent Theories of Narrative. Ithaca and London: Cornell
UP 1986.
Martinez and Scheffel 1999
Matias Martinez and Michael Scheffel: Einführung in die Erzähltheorie.
München: Beck 1999.
Matthews 1977
Robert J. Matthews: Describing and Interpreting a Work of Art. In: JAAC
36 (1977), 5-14.
Mays 1962
Milton A. Mays: Review Booth 1961. In: Critique: Studies in Contempo-
rary Fiction 5:2 (1962), 84-90.
McKeon 1952a
Richard McKeon: Aristotle’s Conception of Language and the Arts of
Language. In: Crane et al. 1952, 176-231.
McKeon 1952b
Richard McKeon: The Philosophic Bases of Art and Criticism. In: Crane et
al. 1952, 463-545.
McKeon 1982
Richard McKeon: Criticism and the Liberal Arts: The Chicago School of
Criticism. In: Profession 82 (1982), 1-18.
McKillop 1962/63
Alan D. McKillop: Review Booth 1961. In: Modern Philology 60:4
(1962/63), 295-298.
McKoon and Ratcliff 1992
Gail McKoon and Roger Ratcliff: Inference During Reading. In: Psychol-
ogical Review 99 (1992), 440-466.
Works Cited 209
Meister et al. 2005
Jan Christoph Meister et al. (eds.): Narratology beyond Literary Criticism:
Mediality – Disciplinarity. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2005 (Narra-
tologia 6)
Mersch 1993
Dieter Mersch: Umberto Eco zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius 1993.
Müller 1984
Hans-Harald Müller: Tendenzen der westdeutschen Literaturwissenschaft
nach 1965. Dargestellt an den Antworten auf die Probleme einer wissen-
schaftlichen Textinterpretation. In: LWU 15 (1984), 87-114.
Müller 1988
Hans-Harald Müller: Wissenschaftsgeschichte und Rezeptionsforschung.
Ein kritischer Essay über den vorerst (vorletzten) Versuch, die Literatur-
wissenschaft von Grund auf neu zu gestalten. In: Jörg Schönert and Harro
Segeberg (eds.): Polyperspektivik in der literarischen Moderne. Studien
zur Theorie, Geschichte und Wirkung der Literatur. Karl Robert Mandel-
kow gewidmet. Frankfurt/M.: Lang 1988 (Hamburger Beiträge zur Germa-
nistik 1), 452-479.
Müller 1989
Hans-Harald Müller: Probleme des Anwendungsbereichs eines Definiti-
onsprogramms in der Literaturwissenschaft. In: Wagenknecht 1989, 69-79.
Müller 1991a
Hans-Harald Müller: Zur Funktion und Bedeutung des ‘unzuverlässigen
Ich-Erzählers’ im Werk vom Ernst Weiß. In: Peter Engel and Hans-Harald
Müller (eds.): Ernst Weiß – Seelenanalytiker und Erzähler von europäi-
schem Rang. Beiträge zum Ersten Internationalen Ernst-Weiß-Symposium
aus Anlaß des 50. Todestages. Bern: Lang 1992, 186-196.
Müller 1991b
Hans-Harald Müller: Die Übertragung des Barockbegriffs von der Kunst-
wissenschaft auf die Literaturwissenschaft und ihre Konsequenzen bei
Fritz Strich und Oskar Walzel. In: Klaus Garber (ed.): Europäische Ba-
rock-Rezeption. 2 vol. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1991, vol. 1, 95-112.
Müller 2000
Hans-Harald Müller: Eco zwischen Autor und Text. Eine Kritik von Um-
berto Ecos Interpretationstheorie. In: Kindt and Müller 2000, 134-148.
Murphy 1995
Richard Murphy: Art. Der Akt des Lesens. In: Renner and Habekost 1995,
19-20.
Musarra 2002
Franco Musarra (ed.): Eco in Fabula. Umberto Eco nelle scienze umane.
Umberto Eco in the Humanities. Umberto Eco dans les sciences humaines.
Leuven: Leuven UP 2002 (Nuova serie 7).
210 Works Cited
Nathan 1982
Daniel O. Nathan: Irony and the Artist’s Intention. In: BJA 22:3 (1982),
245-257.
Nathan 1992
Daniel O. Nathan: Irony, Metaphor, and the Problem of Intention. In:
Iseminger 1992a, 183-203.
Nathan 2005
Daniel O. Nathan: A Paradox in Intentionalism. In: BJA 45:1 (2005), 32-
48.
Nathan 2006
Daniel O. Nathan: Art, Meaning, and Artist’s Meaning. In: Kieran 2006,
282-293.
Nehamas 1981
Alexander Nehamas: The Postulated Author: Critical Monism as a Regu-
lative Ideal. In: Critical Inquiry 8 (1981), 133-139.
Nehamas 1986
Alexander Nehamas: What an Author Is. In: Journal of Philosophy (1986),
685-691.
Nehamas 1987
Alexander Nehamas: Writer, Text, Work, Author. In: Cascardi 1987, 267-
291.
Nelles 1993
William Nelles: Historical and Implied Authors and Readers. In: Com-
parative Literature 45 (1993), 22-46.
Novitz 1982
David Novitz: Towards a Robust Realism. In: JAAC 41 (1982), 171-185.
Novitz 2002
David Novitz: Against Critical Pluralism. In Krausz 2002, 101-121.
Nünning 1989
Ansgar Nünning: Grundzüge eines kommunikationstheoretischen Modells
der erzählerischen Vermittlung: Die Funktion der Erzählinstanz in den
Romanen George Eliots. Trier: WVT 1989.
Nünning 1993
Ansgar Nünning: Renaissance eines anthropomorphisierten Passepartouts
oder Nachruf auf ein literaturkritisches Phantom? Überlegungen und Al-
ternativen zum Konzept des “implied author”. In: DVjs 67 (1993), 1-25.
Nünning 1994
Ansgar Nünning: Gender and Narratology: Kategorien und Perspektiven
einer feministischen Narrativik. In: ZAA 42:2 (1994), 102-121.
Nünning 1995
Ansgar Nünning (ed.): Literaturwissenschaftliche Theorien, Modelle und
Methoden. Eine Einführung. Trier: WVT 1995.
Works Cited 211
Nünning 1997
Ansgar Nünning: Deconstructing and Reconceptualizing the Implied Au-
thor. The Implied Author – Still a Subject of Debate. In: Anglistik. Mit-
teilungen des Verbandes deutscher Anglisten 8 (1997), 95-116.
Nünning 1998a
Ansgar Nünning (ed.): Unreliable Narration. Studien zur Theorie und Pra-
xis unglaubwürdigen Erzählens in der englischsprachigen Erzählliteratur.
Trier: WVT 1998.
Nünning 1998b
Ansgar Nünning: ‘Unreliable Narration’ zur Einführung: Grundzüge einer
kognitiv-narratologischen Theorie und Analyse unglaubwürdigen Erzäh-
lens. In: Nünning 1998a, 3-39.
Nünning 1999a
Ansgar Nünning: Unreliable, Compared to What? Towards a Cognitive
Theory of ‘Unreliable Narration’: Prolegomena and Hypotheses. In: Grün-
zweig and Solbach 1999, 53-73.
Nünning 1999b
Ansgar Nünning: Reconceptualizing the Theory and Generic Scope of Un-
reliable Narration. In: John Pier (ed.): Recent Trends in Narratological Re-
search. Tours: Tours UP 1999 (GRAAT – Groupes de Recherches Anglo-
Americaines de Tours 21), 63-84.
Nünning 2001a
Ansgar Nünning: Totgesagte leben länger: Anmerkungen zur Rückkehr
des Autors und zu Wiederbelebungsversuchen des “impliziten Autors”. In:
Literaturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 42 (2001), 353-385.
Nünning 2001b
Ansgar Nünning (ed.): Metzler-Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorie. An-
sätze – Personen – Grundbegriffe. 2nd ed. Stuttgart and Weimar: Metzler
2001.
Nünning 2001c
Ansgar Nünning: Art. Autor, impliziter. In: Nünning 2001b, 36-37.
Nünning 2005a
Ansgar Nünning: Reconceptualizing Unreliable Narration. Synthesizing
Cognitive and Rhetorical Approaches. In: Phelan and Rabinowitz 2005,
89-107.
Nünning 2005b
Ansgar Nünning: Art. Implied Author. In: Herman et al. 2005, 239-240..
Nünning 2005c
Ansgar Nünning: Art. Reliability. In: Herman et al. 2005, 495-497.
Nünning and Nünning 2002a
Ansgar Nünning and Vera Nünning (eds.): Neue Ansätze in der Erzähl-
theorie. Trier: WVT 2002 (Handbücher zum literaturwissenschaftlichen
Studium 4).
212 Works Cited
Prince 1995a
Gerald Prince: Narratology. In: Raman Selden (ed.): The Cambridge His-
tory of Literary Criticism. Vol. 8: From Formalism to Poststructuralism.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP 1995, 110-130.
Prince 1995b
Gerald Prince: On Narratology: Criteria, Corpus, Context. In: Narrative 3
(1995), 73-84.
Prince 1996
Gerald Prince: Narratology, Narratological Criticism and Gender. In:
Calin-Andrei Michailescu and Walid Harmaneh (eds.): Fiction Updated:
Theories of Fictionality, Narratology and Poetics. Toronto: Toronto UP
1996, 159-164.
Quine 1951
Willard V. O. Quine: Two Dogmas of Empiricism. In: Margolis and Laur-
ence 1999, 153-169.
Quine 1960
Willard V. O. Quine: Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
1960.
Rabinowitz 1977
Peter J. Rabinowitz: Truth in Fiction: A Reexamination of Audiences. In:
Critical Inquiry 4 (1977), 121-141.
Rabinowitz 1987
Peter J. Rabinowitz: Before Reading. Narrative Conventions and the Poli-
tics of Interpretation. With a Foreword by James Phelan. 2nd ed. Ithaca,
New York: Cornell UP 1997.
Rabinowitz 1995
Peter J. Rabinowitz: Other Reader-Oriented Theories. In: Selden 1995,
375-403.
Rahv 1957
Philip Rahv (ed.): Literature in America. An Anthology of Literary Criti-
cism. Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Company 1957.
Ransom 1938
John Crowe Ransom: Criticism. Inc. In: Glicksberg 1951, 453-467.
Ransom 1941
John Crowe Ransom: The New Criticism. Repr. of the ed. 1941. Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood Press 1979.
Ransom 1952
John Crowe Ransom: Humanism at Chicago. In: Kenyon Review 14
(1952), 647-659.
Rapp 2001
Christof Rapp: Aristoteles zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius 2001.
Reichert 1968/69
John Reichert: Description and Interpretation in Literary Criticism. In:
JAAC 27 (1968/69), 281-292.
Works Cited 215
Reid 1986
Ian Reid: The Death of the Implied Author? Voice, Sequence and Control
in Flaubert’s Trois Contes. In: Australian Journal of French Studies 23:2
(1986), 195-211.
Renner and Habekost 1995
Rolf Günter Renner and Engelbert Habekost (eds.): Lexikon literaturtheo-
retischer Werke. Stuttgart: Kröner 1995.
Rey 2000
Alain Rey: Introduction: Defining Definition. In: Juan C. Sager (ed.): Es-
says on Definition. Amsterdam, Phil.: John Benjamins Publishing 2000, 1-
14.
Richter 1982
David Richter: The Second Flight of the Phoenix: Neo-Aristotelianism
Since R. S. Crane. In: The Eighteenth Century: Theory and Interpretation
23:1 (1982), 27-48.
Richter 1996
Matthias Richter: Wirkungsästhetik. In: Arnold and Detering 1996, 516-
535.
Rimmon 1976
Shlomith Rimmon: A Comprehensive Theory of Narrative. Genette’s
Figures III and the Structuralist Study of Fiction. In: PTL. A Journal for
Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature l (1976), 33-62.
Rimmon-Kenan 1983
Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan: Narrative Fiction. Contemporary Poetics. Lon-
don and New York: Routledge 1983.
Rimmon-Kenan 2002
Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan: Towards... Afterthoughts, Almost Twenty
Years Later. In: S. R.-K.: Narrative Fiction. Contemporary Poetics. 2nd ed.
London and New York: Routledge 2002, 134-149.
Roberts 1962
Mark Roberts: Means to Ends in the Novel (Review Booth 1961). In: Es-
says in Criticism 12:3 (1962), 322-334.
Robinson 1984
Jenefer Robinson: General and Individual Style in Literature. In: JAAC 43
(1984), 147-158.
Robinson 1985
Jenefer Robinson: Style and Personality in the Literary Work. In: Philoso-
phical Review 94:2 (1985), 227-247.
Robinson 1968
Richard Robinson: Definition. Oxford: Clarendon 1968.
Rooy 1997
Ronald de Rooy: Il narrativo nella poesia moderna. Proposte teoriche &
esercizi di lettura. Firenze: Franco Cesati Editore 1997.
216 Works Cited
Rorty 1985a
Richard Rorty: Texts and Lumps. In: NLH 17: 1 (1985), 1-15.
Rorty 1985b
Richard Rorty: Philosophy without Principles. In: Critical Inquiry 11:3
(1985), 459-465.
Rorty 1989
Richard Rorty: Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP 1989.
Rorty 1992
Richard Rorty: The Pragmatist’s Progress. In: Eco 1992a, 89-108.
Rudolph 1962
Frederick Rudolph: The American College and University: A History.
New York: Knopf 1962.
Rühling 1996
Lutz Rühling: Fiktionalität und Poetizität. In: Arnold and Detering 1996,
25-51.
Schalk 2000
Helge Schalk: Umberto Eco und das Problem der Interpretation. Ästhetik,
Semiotik, Textpragmatik. Würzburg: Könighausen & Neumann 2000
(Epistemata 276).
Schippers 1981
J. G. Schippers: On Persuading (some Notes on the Implied Author in
Critical Discourse). In: Dutch Quarterly Review of Anglo-American Let-
ters 11 (1981), 34-54.
Schlickers 1997
Sabine Schlickers: Verfilmtes Erzählen: narratologisch-komparative Un-
tersuchung zu El beso de la mujer araña (Manuel Puig / Héctor Babenco)
und Crónica de una muerte anunciada (Gabriel García Márquez /
Francesco Rosi). Frankfurt/M.: Vervuert 1997.
Schmid 1973
Wolf Schmid: Der Textaufbau in den Erzählungen Dostoevskijs. Mün-
chen: Fink 1973 (Beihefte zu Poetica 10).
Schmid 1974
Wolf Schmid: Review Janik 1973. In: Poetica 4 (1974), 124-134.
Schmid 1986
Wolf Schmid: Nachwort zur zweiten Auflage. Eine Antwort an die Kriti-
ker. In: W. S.: Der Textaufbau in den Erzählungen Dostoevskijs. 2nd ed.
Amsterdam: Grüner 1986, 299-318.
Schmid 1987
Wolf Schmid: Analysieren oder Deuten? Überlegungen zur Kontroverse
zwischen Strukturalismus und Hermeneutik am Beispiel von ýechovs “Ne-
vesta”. In: Die Welt der Slawen 32 (1987), 101-120.
Works Cited 217
Schmid 1996
Wolf Schmid: Die Brüder Karamazov als religiöser “Nadryv” ihres Au-
tors. In: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 41 (1996), 25-50.
Schmid 1999
Wolf Schmid: “Dialogizität” in der narrativen “Kommunikation”. In: In-
gunn Lunde (ed.): Dialogue and Rhetoric. Communication Strategies in
Russian Text and Theory. Bergen: Dept. of Russian Studies 1999, 9-23.
Schmid 2005
Wolf Schmid: Elemente der Narratologie. Berlin and New York: de
Gruyter 2005 (Narratologia 8).
Schmidt 1980/82
Siegfried J. Schmidt: Grundriß der Empirischen Literaturwissenschaft.
Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp 1991.
Schmidt 1983
Siegfried J. Schmidt: Interpretation: Sacred Cow or Necessity. In: Poetics
12 (1983), 239-258.
Schneider 1994
Anna Dorothea Schneider: Literaturkritik und Bildungspolitik. R. S. Crane,
die Chicago (Neo-Aristotelian) Critics und die University of Chicago. Hei-
delberg: Winter 1994.
Schönert 1999
Jörg Schönert: Empirischer Autor, Impliziter Autor und lyrisches Ich. In:
Jannidis et al. 1999, 289-294.
Schönert 2004
Jörg Schönert: Normative Vorgaben als ‘Theorie der Lyrik’? Vorschläge
zu einer texttheoretischen Revision. In: Gustav Frank and Wolfgang Lukas
(eds.): Norm – Grenze – Abweichung. Kultursemiotische Studien zu Lite-
ratur, Medien und Wirtschaft. Michael Titzmann zum 60. Geburtstag. Pas-
sau: Karl Stutz 2004, 303-318.
Schöttker 1996
Detlef Schöttker: Theorien der literarischen Rezeption. Rezeptionsästhetik,
Rezeptionsforschung, Empirische Literaturwissenschaft. In: Arnold and
Detering 1996, 537-554.
Scholes 1974
Robert Scholes: Structuralism in Literature. An Introduction. New Haven:
Yale UP 1974.
Scholz 2000
Gunter Scholz (ed.): Die Interdisziplinarität der Begriffsgeschichte. Ham-
burg: Meiner 2000 (Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte – Sonderheft).
Schultze-Seehof 2001
Dörte Schultze-Seehof: Italienische Literatursemiotik. Von Avalle bis Eco.
Tübingen: Gunter Narr 2001 (Kodikas/Code Supplement 25).
218 Works Cited
Scott 1962
Wilbur S. Scott: Five Approaches of Literary Criticism. An Arrangement
of Contemporary Critical Essays. New York: Collier Books 1962.
Shereen 1988
Faiza Wahby Shereen: An Introduction to the Assumptions, Methods, and
Practices of the Chicago School of Criticism. Cincinnati: Ph.D. University
of Cincinnati 1988.
Shusterman 1992
Richard Shusterman: Pragmatist Aesthetics: Living Beauty, Rethinking
Art. Oxford: Blackwell 1992.
Schutte 1984
Jürgen Schutte: Einführung in die Literaturinterpretation. Stuttgart: Metz-
ler 1984 (Sammlung Metzler 217).
Schwarz 1985
Daniel R. Schwarz: Reality as a Moral Activity (Review Booth 1961 2nd
ed.). In: Sewanee Review 93 (1985), 480-485.
Sontag 1967
Susan Sontag: Against Interpretation. In: S. S.: Against Interpretation and
Other Essays. New York: Dell Publ. 1967, 3-14.
Sparshott 1986
Francis Sparshott: The Case of the Unreliable Author. In: Philosophy and
Literature 10:2 (1986), 145-167.
Spilka 1977
Mark Spilka (ed.): Towards a Poetics of Fiction. Bloomington and Lon-
don: Indiana UP 1977.
Spree 1995
Axel Spree: Kritik der Interpretation. Analytische Untersuchungen zu in-
terpretationskritischen Literaturtheorien. Paderborn: Schöningh 1995.
Spree 2000
Axel Spree: Art. Interpretation. In: Harald Fricke (ed.): Reallexikon der
deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. Bd. 2. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter
2000, 168-172.
Sprinker 1985
Michael Sprinker: What Is Living and What is Dead in Chicago Criticism.
In: Boundary. An International Journal of Literature and Culture 13
(1985), 189-212.
Stanzel 1959
Franz K. Stanzel: Episches Praeterium, erlebte Rede, historisches Praesens.
In: Stanzel 2002a, 127-141.
Stanzel 1964
Franz K. Stanzel: Typische Formen des Romans. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht 1964 (Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe 1187).
Works Cited 219
Stanzel 1979
Franz K. Stanzel: Theorie des Erzählens. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht 1979 (UTB 904).
Stanzel 1992
Franz K. Stanzel: Probleme der Erzählforschung 1950-1990. Ein Rück-
blick. In: Stanzel 2002a, 207-218.
Stanzel 2002a
Franz K. Stanzel: Unterwegs – Erzähltheorie für Leser. Ausgewählte
Schriften mit einer bio-bibliographischen Einleitung und einem Appendix
von Dorrit Cohn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2002.
Stanzel 2002b
Franz K. Stanzel: Eine Erzähltheorie für Leser. In: Stanzel 2002a, 9-109.
Stecker 1987
Robert Stecker: Apparent, Implied, and Postulated Authors. In: Philosophy
and Literature 11 (1987), 258-272.
Stecker 1997
Robert Stecker: Artworks. Definition – Meaning – Value. University Park,
Pen.: Pennsylvania State UP 1997.
Stecker 2006
Robert Stecker: Interpretation and the Problem of the Relevant Intention.
In: Kieran 2006, 269-295.
Stegner 1961
Wallace Stegner: An Indispensable Book (Review Booth 1961). In: The
American Scholar: A Quarterly for the Independent Thinker 31 (1961),
464-468.
Stout 1982
Jeffrey Stout: What is the Meaning of a Text. In: NLH 14 (1982), 1-12.
Stout 1986
Jeffrey Stout: The Relativity of Interpretation. In: The Monist 69 (1986),
103-118.
Stovall 1955
Floyd Stovall (ed.): The Development of American Literary Criticism.
Chapel Hill: North Carolina UP 1955.
Strelka and Hinderer 1970
Joseph Strelka and Walter Hinderer (eds.): Moderne amerikanische Litera-
turtheorie. Frankfurt/M.: Fischer 1970.
Strube 1993
Werner Strube: Analytische Philosophie der Literaturwissenschaft. Unter-
suchungen zur literaturwissenschaftlichen Definition, Klassifikation, Inter-
pretation, Bewertung. Paderborn: Schöningh 1993.
Strube 2000
Werner Strube: Die literaturwissenschaftliche Textinterpretation. In: Paul
Michel and Hans Weder (eds.): Sinnvermittlung. Studien zur Geschichte
von Exegese und Hermeneutik I. Zürich: Pano-Verlag 2000, 43-69.
220 Works Cited
Strube 2003
Werner Strube: Über verschiedene Arten der Bedeutung sprachlicher Äu-
ßerungen. Eine sprachphilosophische Untersuchung. In: Jannidis et al.
2003, 36-67.
Suleiman and Crosman 1980
Susan R. Suleiman and Inge Crosman (eds.): The Reader in the Text. Es-
says on Audience and Interpretation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP 1980.
Sutton 1963
Walter Sutton: Modern American Criticism. Westport, Con.: Greenwood
Press 1963.
Swiggart 1963
Peter Swiggart: Mr. Booth’s Quarrel with Fiction. In: Sewanee Review 71
(1963), 142-159.
Thompson Klein 1996
Julie Thompson Klein: Crossing Boundaries. Knowledge, Disciplinarities,
and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville and London: Virginia UP 1996.
Tillotson 1959
Kathleen Tillotson: The Tale and the Teller. In: Geoffrey Tillotson and K.
T.: Mid-Victorian Studies. London: Athlone Press 1965, 1-23.
Titzmann 1977
Michael Titzmann: Strukturale Textanalyse. Theorie und Praxis der Inter-
pretation. München: Fink 1977 (UTB 582).
Todorov 1969
Tzvetan Todorov: Grammaire du Décaméron. The Hague and Paris: Mou-
ton 1969.
Tolhurst 1979
William E. Tolhurst: On What a Text Is and How It Means. In: BJA 19
(1979), 3-14.
Tolhurst and Wheeler 1979
William E. Tolhurst and Samuel C. Wheeler III: On Textual Individuation.
In: Philosophical Studies 35 (1979), l87-197.
Tolliver 1997
Joyce Tolliver: From Labov and Waletzky to “Contextualist Narratology”:
1967-1997. In: Journal of Narrative and Life History 7 (1997), 53-60.
Tompkins 1980
Jane Tompkins (ed.): Reader Response Criticism. From Formalism to
Post-Structuralism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP 1980.
Toolan 1988
Michael J. Toolan: Narrative. A Critical Linguistic Introduction. London
and New York: Routledge 1988.
Trivedi 2001
Saam Trivedi: An Epistemic Dilemma for Actual Intentionalism. In: BJA
41:2 (2001), 192-206.
Works Cited 221
Vandevelde 2005
Pol Vandevelde: A Pragmatic Critique of Pluralism in Text Interpretation.
In: Metaphilosophy 36:4 (2005), 501-521.
Veit-Brause 2000
Irmline Veit-Brause: Die Interdisziplinarität der Begriffsgeschichte als
Brücke zwischen den Disziplinen. In: Scholz 2000, 15-29.
Vince 1993
Ronald W. Vince: Neo-Aristotelian or Chicago School. In: Irena R. Ma-
karyk (ed.): Encyclopedia of Literary Theory. Toronto, Buffalo and Lon-
don: Toronto UP 1993, 116-119.
Vivas 1953
Eliseo Vivas: The Neo-Aristotelians of Chicago. In: Sewanee Review 61
(1953), 136-149.
Vietta and Kemper 2000
Silvio Vietta and Dirk Kemper: Germanistik der 70er Jahre. Zwischen In-
novation und Ideologie. München: Fink 2000.
Vollhardt 2003
Friedrich Vollhardt: Von der Rezeptionsästhetik zur Historischen Seman-
tik. In: Adam 2003, 189-209.
vom Brocke 1999
Bernhard vom Brocke: Wege aus der Krise: Universitätsseminar, Akade-
miekommission oder Forschungsinstitut. Formen der Institutionalisierung
in den Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften 1810-1900-1995. In: Christoph
König and Eberhard Lämmert (eds.): Konkurrenten in der Fakultät. Kultur,
Wissen und Universität um 1900. Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer, 191-215.
Wagenknecht 1989
Christian Wagenknecht (ed.): Zur Terminologie der Literaturwisenschaft.
Stuttgart: Metzler 1989 (DFG-Symposien IX).
Wallace 1988
Jon Wallace: The Implied Author as Protagonist. A Reading of Little Big
Man. In: Western American Literature 22 (1988), 291-299.
Wall 1994
Kathleen Wall: The Remains of the Day and its Challenges to Theories of
Unreliable Narration. In: JNT 24 (1994), 18-42.
Walsh 1997
Richard Walsh: Who Is the Narrator? In: Poetics Today 18:4 (1997), 495-
513.
Walton 1976
Kendall L. Walton: Points of View in Narrative and Depictive Representa-
tion. In: Noûs 10 (1976), 49-61.
Walton 1979
Kendall L. Walton: Style and the Products and Processes of Art. In: Berel
Lang (ed.): The Concept of Style. 2nd ed. Ithaca and London: Cornell UP
1987, 72-103.
222 Works Cited
Walton 1990
Kendall L. Walton: Mimesis as Make-Believe. On the Foundations of the
Representational Arts. Cambridge and London: Harvard UP 1990.
Warning 1975
Rainer Warning (ed.): Rezeptionsästhetik. Theorie und Praxis. Fink: Mün-
chen 1975.
Weber 1904
Max Weber: Die “Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis. In:
M. W.: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. 6th ed. Ed. by Jo-
hannes Winckelmann. Tübingen: Mohr 1985, 146-214.
Weber 1921
Max Weber: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen: Mohr 1921 (Grundriß
der Sozialökonomik 3).
Webster 1979
Grant Webster: The Republic of Letters. A History of Postwar American
Literary Opinion. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP 1979.
Weimann 1967
Robert Weimann: Review Booth 1961. In: ZAA 15:3 (1967), 306-309.
Weimar 1980
Klaus Weimar: Enzyklopädie der Literaturwissenschaft. München: Fran-
cke 1980 (UTB 1034).
Weitz 1977
Morris Weitz: The Opening Mind. A Philosophical Study on Humanistic
Concepts. Chicago and London: Chicago UP 1977.
Wellek 1956
Rene Wellek: American Criticism 1900-1950. New Haven and London:
Yale UP 1956 (A History of Modern Criticism 6).
Wenzel 2001
Peter Wenzel: Art. New Criticism. In: Nünning 2001b, 471-473.
Wenzel 2004
Peter Wenzel: Übergreifende Modelle des Erzähltextes. In: P. W. (ed.):
Einführung in die Erzähltextanalyse. Kategorien, Modelle, Probleme.
Trier: WVT 2004 (Handbücher zum literaturwissenschaftlichen Studium
6).
Weststeijn 1984
Willem G. Weststeijn: Author and Implied Author. Some Notes on the
Author in the Text. In: J. J. van Baak (ed.): Signs of Friendship. To Hon-
our A. G. F. van Holk, Slavist, Linguist, Semiotician. Amsterdam: Rodopi
1984, 553-568.
Wiegmann 1981
Hermann Wiegmann: Der implizite Autor des Gedichts. Untersuchungen
zum Verhältnis von Sprecher und textimmanenter Autorposition. In: Ar-
chiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 133:218
(1981), 37-46.
Works Cited 223
Wilson 1981
Daniel S. Wilson: Readers in Texts. In: PMLA 96:1 (1981), 848-863.
Wilson 1997
Kent Wilson: Confession of a Weak Anti-Intentionalist: Exposing Myself.
In: JAAC 55 (1997), 309-311.
Wimsatt 1954a
William K. Wimsatt: The Verbal Icon. Studies in the Meaning of Poetry.
Lexington: Kentucky UP 1954.
Wimsatt 1954b
William K. Wimsatt: The Chicago Critics. The Fallacy of Neoclassic Spe-
cies. In: Wimsatt 1954a, 41-65.
Wimsatt and Beardsley 1946
William K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley: The Intentional Fallacy. In:
Wimsatt 1954a, 3-18.
Wimsatt and Beardsley 1954
William K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley: The Affective Fallacy. In:
Wimsatt 1954a, 21-398.
Winko 1995
Simone Winko: Verstehen literarischer Texte versus literarisches Verste-
hen von Texten? Zur Relevanz kognitionspsychologischer Verstehensfor-
schung für das hermeneutische Paradigma der Literaturwissenschaft. In:
DVjs 69 (1995), 1-27.
Wolff 1971
Erwin Wolff: Der intendierte Leser. Überlegungen und Beispiele zur Ein-
führung eines literaturwissenschaftlichen Begriffs. In: Poetica 4 (1971),
141-166.
Wright 1962
Andrew Wright: Man in Charge (Review Booth 1961). In: The Kenyon
Review 24:3 (1962), 566-570.
Yacobi 1981
Tamar Yacobi: Fictional Reliability as a Communicative Problem. In: Po-
etics Today 2 (1981), 113-126.
Yacobi 1987
Tamar Yacobi: Narrative and Normative Pattern: On Interpreting Fiction.
In: Journal of Literary Studies 3:2 (1987), 18-41.
Yacobi 2001
Tamar Yacobi: Package Deals in Fictional Narrative. The Case of the Nar-
rator’s (Un)reliability. In: Narrative 9:2 (2001), 223-229.
Yacobi 2005
Tamar Yacobi: Authorial Rhetoric, Narratorial (Un)Reliability, Divergent
Readings: Tolstoy’s Kreutzer Sonata. In: Phelan and Rabinowitz 2005,
108-123.
224 Works Cited
York 1987
Lorraine M. York: “The Pen of the Contriver” and the Eye of the Per-
ceiver. Mansfield Park, the Implied Author and the Implied Reader. In:
English Studies in Canada 13 (1987), 161-173.
Zapf 2001
Hubert Zapf: Art. Chicago-Schule. In: Nünning 2001b, 82-83.
Zerweck 2001
Bruno Zerweck: Historicizing Unreliable Narration: Unreliability and
Cultural Discourse in Narrative Fiction. In: Style 35:1 (2001), 151-178.
Zipfel 2001
Frank Zipfel: Fiktion, Fiktivität, Fiktionalität. Analysen zur Fiktion in der
Literatur und zum Fiktionsbegriff in der Literaturwissenschaft. Berlin:
Erich Schmidt 2001.
Acknowledgements
This book took shape between 2001 and 2004 in the context of a
project attached to the University of Hamburg’s Narratology Re-
search Group, funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(DFG).
A preliminary outline of the study was presented at a DFG-
sponsored conference on the theme ‘Return of the Author?’ organ-
ized by Simone Winko, Fotis Jannidis, Gerhard Lauer, and Matias
Martinez in 1997; we would like to thank the participants at this
conference for their suggestions and constructive criticism. Col-
leagues in the Narratology Research Group in Hamburg made regu-
lar contributions to the project as it evolved. Matthias Aumüller,
Oliver David Krug, Gunther Martens, and Jan Christoph Meister
read and commented informatively on a first draft of the book. We
are most grateful to them, and to Jens Eder and Tilmann Köppe, for
their help. Furthermore, we would like to thank Sophia Jungmann,
Wilhelm Schernus and Manuel Werder for valuable expert advice.
We are also grateful to the two readers from the Narratologia series
advisory board who subjected the manuscript to a close reading and
provided constructive criticism of our ideas. Finally, our special
thanks are due to Alastair Matthews, who translated the text and
clarified some difficult points. Any shortcomings that remain are
our responsibility alone.