Unreliable Narration With a Narrator and Without

Köppe, Tilmann; Kindt, Tom

doi:10.1515/jlt.2011.007

Cited by 27 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is important, both ethically and narratologically, to remember that some worldviews and voices are privileged in a narrative while others may be deprioritised or absent (Stys 2006, 65). As such, Tilmann Köppe and Tom Kindt note that while fictional narratives can ‘authorise (virtually) all kinds of imaginings’, the ‘fictional facts’ and narrative logic of each case limits what audiences are authorised to imagine in any given instance (Köppe and Kindt 2011, 87, 90). This has a lot to do with the narrative point of view used in the story and the reliability or unreliability of any narrator.…”

Section: Close Textual Analysis and Feminist Narratologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Science fiction in bioethics: a role for feminist narratology

Kendal

2022

Med Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the various reasons science-fictional references feature so prominently in bioethical debate, particularly regarding emerging reproductive biotechnologies. It will reflect on how science-fictional references are often co-opted in bioethics scholarship to promote technoconservatism, before considering how bioethicists can engage more appropriately with this genre in practice. This will include a discussion of which kinds of texts might be best suited to stimulate meaningful debate, and how using tools of literary analysis, such as narratology, can maximise the potential benefits of uniting these fields.

show abstract

Section: Close Textual Analysis and Feminist Narratologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Science fiction in bioethics: a role for feminist narratology

Kendal

2022

Med Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…a perceptible personal/figural narrator (cf. Köppe & Kindt, 2011), is only intermittent in films (see e.g. Stam, Burgoyne, & Flitterman-Lewis, 1992).…”

Section: Film As a Multimodal Narrative Constructed By The Cinematic mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most importantly, Bordwell's (1985Bordwell's ( , 2008 argument concerning narrator-less film seems to be based on the assumption that a narrator is part of the viewer's cog-2 Many (Hamburger, 1957;Banfield, 1978;Branigan, 1984;Köppe & Kindt, 2011;see Sternberg & Yacobi, 2015 and references therein) claim that the narrator may be absent in literary fiction altogether and the reader is invited to imagine that something is the case without any intermediary telling the story. However, others (e.g.…”

Section: Film As a Multimodal Narrative Constructed By The Cinematic mentioning

confidence: 99%

When Both Utterances and Appearances are Deceptive: Deception in Multimodal Film Narrative

Dynel

2021

Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy &Amp; Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article gives a comprehensive theoretical account of deception in multimodal film narrative in the light of the pragmatics of film discourse, the cognitive philosophy of film, multimodal analysis, studies of fictional narrative and – last but not least – the philosophy of lying and deception. Critically addressing the extant literature, a range or pertinent notions and issues are examined: multimodality, film narration and the status of the cinematic narrator, the pragmatics of film construction (notably, the characters’ communicative level and the one of the collective sender and the recipient), the fictional world and its truth, the recipient’s film engagement and make believing, as well as narrative unreliability. Previous accounts of deceptive films are revisited and three main types of film deception are proposed with regard to the two levels of communication on which it materialises, the characters’ level and the recipient’s level, as well as the intradiegetic and/or the extradiegetic narrator involved. This discussion is illustrated with multimodally transcribed examples of deception extracted from the American television series House. In the course of the analysis, attention is paid to how specific types of deception detailed in the philosophy of language (notably, lies, deceptive implicature, withholding information, covert ambiguity, and covert irrelevance) are deployed through multimodal means in the three types of film deception (extradiegetic deception, intradiegetic deception, and a combination of both when performed by both cinematic and intradiegetic narrators). Finally, inspired by the discussion of Hitchcock’s controversial lying flashback scene in Stage Fright, as well as films relying on tacit intradiegetic, unreliable narrators (focalising characters) an attempt is made to answer the thorny question of when the extradiegetic (cinematic) narrator can perform lies (through mendacious multimodal assertions) addressed by the collective sender to the recipient, and not just only other forms of deception, as is commonly maintained.

show abstract

“…In the meantime, it is feasible to say that the idea of heterodiegetic unreliability have begun to gain sway as evidenced borth through specific examples such as McEwan's Atonement and new methodologies borrowing from analytical philosophy (cf. Köppe/Kindt 2011;Zipfel 2011). Zipfel (2011: 126) cites the specific case of Ambrose Bierce's An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge as an example.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unreliability in Non-Fiction: The Case of the Unreliable Addressee

Martens¹

2015

Unreliable Narration and Trustworthiness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unreliable Narration With a Narrator and Without

Cited by 27 publications

References 10 publications

Science fiction in bioethics: a role for feminist narratology

Science fiction in bioethics: a role for feminist narratology

When Both Utterances and Appearances are Deceptive: Deception in Multimodal Film Narrative

Unreliability in Non-Fiction: The Case of the Unreliable Addressee

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About