<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>In her study <italic>Fiction and Imagination: The Anthropological Function of Literature</italic> (2000), Margit Sutrop criticizes Gregory Currie’s theory of fiction-making, as presented in <italic><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_disp-2010-0004_ref_001_w2aab3b7b3b1b6b1ab1ab1Aa">The Nature of Fiction(1990)</xref></italic>, for using an inappropriate conception of the author’s ‘fictive intention.’ As Sutrop sees it, Currie is mistaken in reducing the author’s fictive intention to that of achieving a certain response in the audience. In this paper, I shall discuss Sutrop’s theory of fiction-making and argue that although her view is insightful in distinguishing the illocutionary effect and the perlocutionary effect in the author’s fictive intention, there are flaws in it. My aim is to show that, first, Sutrop’s critique of Currie’s view is misguided and, second, her own definition of fiction as the author’s expression of her imagination is problematic in not distinguishing literary fiction-making from other discursive functions and in dismissing the literary practice which regulates the production of literary fictions.</p></abstract>

In her study Fiction and Imagination: The Anthropological Function of Literature (2000), Margit Sutrop criticizes Gregory Currie’s theory of fiction-making, as presented in The Nature of Fiction(1990), for using an inappropriate conception of the author’s ‘fictive intention.’ As Sutrop sees it, Currie is mistaken in reducing the author’s fictive intention to that of achieving a certain response in the audience. In this paper, I shall discuss Sutrop’s theory of fiction-making and argue that although her view is insightful in distinguishing the illocutionary effect and the perlocutionary effect in the author’s fictive intention, there are flaws in it. My aim is to show that, first, Sutrop’s critique of Currie’s view is misguided and, second, her own definition of fiction as the author’s expression of her imagination is problematic in not distinguishing literary fiction-making from other discursive functions and in dismissing the literary practice which regulates the production of literary fictions.

Sutrop on literary fiction-making: defending Currie

Disputatio

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

{"article-title":"Sutrop on literary fiction-making: defending Currie"}

In her study Fiction and Imagination: The Anthropological Function of Literature (2000), Margit Sutrop criticizes Gregory Currie’s theory of fiction-making, as...

Sutrop on literary fiction-making: defending Currie

Data publikacji: 31 gru 2018

Zakres stron: 309 - 315

Otrzymano: 09 lut 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/disp-2010-0004

Słowa kluczowe
Fiction, fiction-making, literature, Sutrop, Currie

© 2010 Jukka Mikkonen, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Sutrop on literary fiction-making: defending Currie

Data publikacji: 31 gru 2018

Zakres stron: 309 - 315

Otrzymano: 09 lut 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/disp-2010-0004

Słowa kluczoweFiction, fiction-making, literature, Sutrop, Currie

© 2010 Jukka Mikkonen, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Słowa kluczowe
Fiction, fiction-making, literature, Sutrop, Currie