Standing in the last ditch : on the communicative intentions of fiction-makers

Some of us have suggested that what fiction makers do is offer us things to imagine, that this is what is distinctive of fiction and what distinguishes it from narrative-based but assertive activities such as journalism or history. Some of us hold, further, that it is the maker's intention which confers fictional status. Many, I think, feel the intuitive appeal of this idea at the same time as they sense looming problems for any proposal about fiction's nature based straightforwardly on the identification of fiction with the to-be-imagined. I formulate a very weak version of the proposal which is not vulnerable to some objections recently presented. My formulation is in terms of supervenience. But while this version is weak, it is also quite precise, and its precision brings into view certain other problems which have not so far been attended to. To the extent that these problems are serious, the prospects for an intentional theory of fiction look, I am sorry to say, poor; the version susceptible to the objections is weak, and anything weaker still but not so susceptible could hardly be thought of as a theory of fiction, though it might supplement such a theory

Art For Art’s Sake In The Old Stone Age

Is there a sensible version of the slogan “Art for art’s sake”? If there is, does it apply to anything? I believe that the answers to these questions are Yes and Yes. A positive answer to the first question alone would not be of interest; an intelligible claim without application does not do us much good. It’s the positive answer to the second question which is, I think, more important and perhaps surprising, since I claim to find art for art’s sake at a time well before most authorities would allow that there was any art at all. But I begin more recently than that

Écho et feintise : quelle est la différence et qui a raison ?

Dans un essai antérieur (« Why irony is pretence », in S. Nichols, dir., The Architecture of the Imagination, Oxford University Press, 2006) j’ai défendu une version de la théorie de l’ironie comme feintise — selon laquelle l’ironiste prétend adopter une perspective qui est en quelque sorte déficiente. J’ai aussi comparé cette version de la théorie de la feintise avec la théorie échoïque de Sperber et Wilson, en concluant que la théorie de la feintise était supérieure. Deirdre Wilson a répondu à cet article (« The pragmatics of verbal irony : echo or pretence ? » dans Lingua 116, 2006, 1722-1743). Dans le présent article, je réponds aux contre-arguments de Wilson. Je fournis aussi un contre-exemple à la théorie échoïque aidant à montrer que, contrairement à ce que pensent certains, la théorie échoïque et celle de la feintise ne sont pas équivalentes. Pour finir, je considère certaines conséquences, pour la théorie littéraire, de la conception selon laquelle l’ironie consiste à feindre avoir un point de vue déficient.In earlier work (“Why irony is pretence”, in S. Nichols (ed) The Architecture of Imagination, Oxford University Press, 2006) I have argued for a version of the pretence theory of irony — a version according to which the ironist is pretending to adopt a perspective which is defective in some way. I also contrasted this version of the pretence theory with the echoic theory of Sperber and Wilson, concluding that the pretence theory is superior. Deirdre Wilson has now responded to this paper (“The pragmatics of verbal irony : echo or pretence ?” Lingua 116 (2006) 1722-1743). In the present paper I respond to Wilson’s counterarguments. I also generate a counterexample to the echoic theory which helps to show that, contrary to what some have thought, the echoic and pretence theories are not equivalent. Finally, I consider some of the consequences for literary theory of thinking of irony as pretending to have a defective point of view

Aesthetic sense and social cognition: a story from the Early Stone Age

Human aesthetic practices show a sensitivity to the ways that the appearance of an artefact manifests skills and other qualities of the maker. We investigate a possible origin for this kind of sensibility, locating it in the need for co-ordination of skill-transmission in the Acheulean stone tool culture. We argue that our narrative supports the idea that Acheulian agents were aesthetic agents. In line with this we offer what may seem an absurd comparison: between the Acheulian and the Quattrocento. In making it we display some hidden richness in what counts as an aesthetic response to an artefact. We conclude with a brief review of rival explanations—biological and/or cultural—of how this skills-based sensibility became a regular feature of human aesthetic practices

Aesthetic Explanation and the archaeology of symbols

I argue that aesthetic ideas should play a significant role in archaeological explanation. I sketch an account of aesthetic interests which is appropriate to archaeological contexts. I illustrate the role of aesthetics through a discussion of the transition from signals to symbols. I argue that the opposition in archaeological debate between explanation and interpretation is one we should reject

New evidence on Allyn Young's style and influence as a teacher

This paper publishes the hitherto unpublished correspondence between Allyn Abbott Young's biographer Charles Blitch and 17 of Young's former students or associates. Together with related biographical and archival material, the paper shows the way in which this adds to our knowledge of Young's considerable influence as a teacher upon some of the twentieth century's greatest economists. The correspondents are as follows: James W Angell, Colin Clark, Arthur H Cole, Lauchlin Currie, Melvin G de Chazeau, Eleanor Lansing Dulles, Howard S Ellis, Frank W Fetter, Earl J Hamilton, Seymour S Harris, Richard S Howey, Nicholas Kaldor, Melvin M Knight, Bertil Ohlin, Geoffrey Shepherd, Overton H Taylor, and Gilbert Walker