Day: November 10, 2024

Introduction: “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

“Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan first appeared in Stylistyka XI and examines how the concept of “literariness” is embedded within cultural and social contexts, rather than being an intrinsic quality of texts. Building upon the ideas of literary theorists like Jonathan Culler, Juvan argues that literary theory has moved beyond formalist approaches that isolated literature’s distinct features, instead focusing on how literariness is socially constructed. He references Bourdieu’s sociology of art, suggesting that the identity of literature is shaped within social frameworks that include historical, ideological, and institutional influences. Juvan highlights that literature, as a category, is a construct reflecting the cultural, social, and ideological frameworks that determine what qualifies as literary. By grounding literariness in these external conventions, Juvan’s work challenges traditional definitions and emphasizes the mutable and context-dependent nature of literary texts. This study is crucial as it reshapes literary theory by underscoring that our understanding of “literary” qualities is contingent upon the cultural context, which broadens the scope for interdisciplinary approaches to studying texts.

Summary of “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

• Literariness in the Context of Literary Theory’s Evolution
  Juvan highlights how the concept of literariness has evolved alongside literary theory, particularly noting a shift away from the “distinctiveness of literature” as a primary theoretical concern, as stated by Jonathan Culler (2000: 274). The focus has shifted from purely aesthetic or formalist concerns to interdisciplinary issues, integrating concepts such as race, gender, and class. This shift reflects an understanding that the very notion of literariness is deeply embedded in cultural and evaluative frameworks, rather than isolated in the text itself (Juvan, Stylistyka XI).
• The Crisis and Transformation of Literary Theory
  The development of literary theory was significantly influenced by Eastern and Central European intellectual traditions, particularly post-World War II, in response to the decline of positivism and historicism. The establishment of literary theory as a distinct discipline helped solidify the field, moving beyond the practical norms of poetics and rhetoric to treat literature as an autonomous social system governed by its own internal rules (Tihanov 2001; Bourdieu 1996: 294). This institutionalization and historicity underlie current challenges to the discipline as postmodern critique questions literature’s unique ontological status.
• Defining Literariness as an “Objective” Feature
  Juvan examines the idea of literariness as an objective feature within texts, proposing two core criteria: unique language use and a distinct perspective on reality (Culler 1989: 34). However, Jan Mukarovsky’s (1948) observations indicate that poetic language is not entirely autonomous; rather, it exists in a spectrum of linguistic styles influenced by conventions. This view challenges the notion of an inherent literary language and suggests that literariness depends on the interplay of textual structure and the reader’s interpretative practices (Mukarovsky 1948: 82-83).
• Polyvalence and Referentiality in Literary Texts
  Juvan expands on literariness through the lens of polysemy and textual self-referentiality, emphasizing that literary texts invite layered, interconnected readings that transcend straightforward interpretation (Garcia-Berrio 1992: 39-79). Such qualities, termed “depragmatization,” lead to a text’s meaning being tied more to cultural memory than to specific contexts (Culler 1989: 34). The literary text, therefore, generates meaning through intertextual references and requires greater reader engagement for interpretation.
• Literariness as Convention and Institutional Influence
  Anti-essentialist perspectives, such as those of Eagleton (1983) and Leitch (1992), argue that literariness is not confined to traditionally literary genres but arises from interpretive frameworks and social conventions that can elevate any text, including journalism, to literary status (Leitch 1992: 42). Juvan’s discussion of Tomaz Salamun’s poem exemplifies how literariness is contextually assigned, where a shift in medium or authorial name reconfigures a text’s perceived literariness based on cultural expectations (Danto 1981: 51).
• The Literary Canon as a Basis for Literariness
  Canonical texts play a vital role in defining literariness by setting paradigms for what is considered exemplary in literary art. These works serve as cultural reference points, embedding norms, genres, and ethical standards that guide the broader understanding of literature (Juvan 1994: 277-289). This canonization process, supported by the social and educational institutions, creates a quasi-religious “belief” in literature’s transcendent qualities, reinforcing the culturally specific effects that define a text as literary (Bourdieu 1996: 170).
• Interdependent Factors of Literariness
  According to Juvan, literariness results from multiple interdependent factors, including authorial intent, thematic and stylistic organization, and cultural reception (Rusch 1997: 97). These elements collectively shape a text’s literariness, with the “appropriate expectations, frameworks, and conventions” activated through reader interaction and metatextual discourse.
• Conclusion: Literariness as a Flexible, Culturally-Based Convention
  Juvan concludes that literariness is not a fixed quality but a “historically, socially, and culturally differentiated convention” (Schmidt 1997: 144). Systems theory, as outlined by Bourdieu and Schmidt, offers a nuanced approach to understanding the socio-historical contexts that produce literariness, underscoring that literary theory practitioners are also participants in shaping these conventions within educational and scientific frameworks.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

Contribution of “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

Criticism Against “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

• Overemphasis on Cultural Context
  Critics may argue that Juvan’s theory places excessive emphasis on cultural, social, and historical contexts, potentially undermining the intrinsic qualities of a text that can contribute to its literariness. This perspective might challenge Juvan’s cultural relativism by asserting that certain formal or aesthetic qualities are universally literary, regardless of cultural framework.
• Subjectivity of Literariness
  By defining literariness as a culturally contingent concept, Juvan’s approach may lead to overly subjective interpretations of what is “literary.” Some critics may feel that this flexibility erodes any stable criteria for distinguishing literature from other discourses, making it difficult to maintain literary studies as a coherent field.
• Neglect of Authorial Intent
  Juvan’s emphasis on reception and cultural interpretation might be seen as neglecting the role of authorial intent in constructing literariness. Critics may argue that understanding an author’s intended artistic choices is essential to defining what makes a text literary, as opposed to relying solely on the interpretations of cultural institutions or readers.
• Ambiguity in Canon Formation
  Critics might question Juvan’s reliance on the literary canon as a determinant of literariness, arguing that canon formation is itself a contested and politically charged process. By aligning literariness with canonical status, Juvan’s theory risks perpetuating existing biases within the canon and marginalizing works from underrepresented cultures or voices.
• Potential Reduction to Sociological Analysis
  Juvan’s approach could be criticized for reducing literary analysis to a sociological investigation of cultural and institutional practices. Some may argue that this perspective overlooks the aesthetic and imaginative power of literature as art, risking a focus more on cultural frameworks than on the text itself.

Representative Quotations from “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

1. Komaromi, Ann. Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne Des Slavistes, vol. 51, no. 2/3, 2009, pp. 397–98. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40871447. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.
2. Juvan, Marko. “Literariness as a culturally based feature.” Stylistyka 11 (2002): 9-30.
3. Taylor, Joanna E., and Ian N. Gregory. “Deep Mapping and the Corpus of Lake District Writing.” Deep Mapping the Literary Lake District: A Geographical Text Analysis, Bucknell University Press, 2022, pp. 1–28. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2v55bsf.6. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

“Language and Literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash first appeared in Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism in 1983, published by Routledge. This seminal work examines the characteristics that distinguish literary language from other forms of communication, exploring the elusive question, “What is literature?” The authors argue against a rigid binary between literary and non-literary language, suggesting instead that literariness exists along a continuum, or “cline,” where elements of literary style can appear even in “ordinary” language. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of how stylistic effects and semantic density contribute to literariness. Carter and Nash emphasize that literariness is not merely about specific vocabulary or syntax but is found in the text’s ability to engage readers in multi-layered, polysemic interpretations. The text is thus self-contained, encouraging readers to explore meanings generated within its boundaries, which marks it as “sovereign” and distinct from functional, transactional texts. Their work is influential in literary theory, as it challenges traditional boundaries and enriches the study of prose by considering linguistic and stylistic elements as fundamental to literary appreciation and critique.

Summary of “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

• Defining Literary Language: Carter and Nash argue that understanding what makes language “literary” is central to literary studies, as it addresses the essential question: “What is literature?” They critique the conventional literary-critical approach, which often involves interpreting established texts, proposing instead that literary language merits a dedicated investigation (Carter & Nash, 1983, p. 123).
• Polarity in Language: The authors reject a strict division between literary and non-literary language, which, they claim, unnecessarily polarizes language types. They advocate for viewing literary qualities along a “cline” or continuum, recognizing that traits of literariness can appear in what might traditionally be considered “ordinary” or “scientific” language (p. 124).
• Absence of Intrinsic Literary Properties: The authors assert that no inherent property makes language literary, arguing that while some words or phrases are associated with a “literary lexicon,” they do not independently constitute literariness. This is seen even in works with rich language structures, which may lack “literariness” on their own (p. 124-125).
• Deviations from Norms: Many theories of literary language rely on deviations from linguistic norms (e.g., syntactic in e.e. cummings, phonological in Hopkins), yet Carter and Nash find such approaches lacking as they fail to account for the multi-layered stylistic interplay that gives rise to literariness (p. 125).
• Semantic Density and Displaced Interaction: They propose “semantic density” as a marker of literariness, where meanings are layered and interconnected. They also introduce the concept of “displaced interaction,” wherein literary texts create indirect or complex interactions between author and reader, contrasting with straightforward transactional texts (p. 125-126).
• Textual Sovereignty: A key feature of literariness, according to Carter and Nash, is the “sovereignty” of the text—its ability to generate meaning independently without needing external references or prior reader knowledge. This self-contained quality distinguishes literary texts from other types, like instructional manuals (p. 130).
• Re-Registration and Polysemy: Literary language often re-registers non-literary expressions in new, symbolic contexts, fostering “polysemy” or multiple layers of meaning. This richness allows literature to operate on various levels simultaneously, thus enhancing its interpretative depth and literary value (p. 132-133).
• Broadening Literary Criticism: The authors call for a shift in English studies toward “linguistic criticism,” focusing on detailed linguistic analysis across different genres, not only conventionally literary ones. This approach, they believe, would deepen understanding and appreciation of diverse texts’ stylistic qualities (p. 130-131

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

Contribution of “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

Criticism Against “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

• Overemphasis on Linguistic Analysis: Some critics argue that Carter and Nash’s focus on linguistic elements, such as syntax and vocabulary, may sideline the emotional and thematic elements of literature that are central to literary appreciation and interpretation.
• Lack of Cultural Context Consideration: The framework presented may be critiqued for not adequately considering how cultural, historical, and societal factors influence what is perceived as “literary” or “non-literary,” which can vary significantly across different audiences.
• Dismissal of Norm-Deviation Framework: Carter and Nash challenge the traditional notion of literary language as a deviation from norms, yet some critics believe this framework is useful for distinguishing unique literary styles, as it highlights the ways authors subvert or innovate upon linguistic norms.
• Broad Definition of Literariness: Their concept of a “cline of literariness” can be seen as too broad or inclusive, potentially diminishing the uniqueness of literature by blurring distinctions between literary and non-literary texts.
• Insufficient Attention to Reader Response: While Carter and Nash introduce “displaced interaction” between author and reader, critics might argue that their approach does not fully explore how individual reader interpretations and personal engagement contribute to the perception of literariness.
• Limited Practical Application Across Genres: Although they propose that their model applies across genres, some might find the framework better suited to certain types of prose rather than poetry, drama, or other literary forms where structural and stylistic norms vary greatly.
• Reduction of Literariness to Linguistic Features: Critics could argue that their analysis risks reducing literariness solely to linguistic features, overlooking how narrative techniques, genre conventions, and plot structure also contribute to the literary qualities of a text.
• Insufficient Consideration of Authorial Intent: Some literary theorists might criticize the work for focusing more on textual analysis than on authorial intent, which can be essential in understanding why specific stylistic or lexical choices are made.

Representative Quotations from “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

1. Carter, R., & Nash, W. (1983). Language and literariness. Prose Studies, 6(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01440358308586190
2. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.
3. McNAMER, SARAH. “The Literariness of Literature and the History of Emotion.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1433–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44017160. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

“Introduction: Literariness and Linguistics by Vimala Herman first appeared in 1983 in the journal Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism. This seminal work examines the distinctions and intersections between literary and non-literary language, challenging the traditional boundaries that separate the two. Herman critically explores how “literariness” is often demarcated by unique linguistic properties—such as foregrounding and fictionalization—yet argues against viewing these as exclusively literary traits. Instead, she proposes that elements often attributed to literary language, such as metaphor and narrative structure, are ubiquitous across various forms of discourse, and their function is more nuanced than simply distinguishing literature. By incorporating insights from structural linguistics, pragmatics, and speech act theory, Herman dismantles binary oppositions of “literary” vs. “ordinary” language, suggesting a more fluid spectrum of language functions. Her work is significant for its influence on modern literary theory, encouraging a shift from essentialist views of literary language to a broader consideration of how language operates in context and across social functions.

Summary of “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

• Interdependence of Literary and Non-literary Language
  Herman argues that the concepts of “literary” and “non-literary” are interdependent, as defining one invariably involves engaging with the other (Herman, p. 99).
• Fictionality and Literariness in Language
  Traditional definitions of literary language emphasize “fictionality” and “literariness,” seen as mutually exclusive from “ordinary” language, which is referential and serves communicative purposes (p. 100).
• Role of Linguistics in Literary Analysis
  Modern linguistics, through structuralism and transformational grammar, has influenced the understanding of literary language. However, there is debate on its usefulness in interpreting literary texts (p. 100).
• Russian Formalist Perspective
  The Russian Formalists focused on “literariness,” highlighting “verbal devices” and “foregrounding” as central to literary language, emphasizing deviation from ordinary language norms to create poetic effects (p. 101-102).
• Concept of Foregrounding
  Foregrounding is a defining feature of poetic language, where linguistic elements are highlighted for aesthetic purposes, distinct from the communicative goal of standard language (Mukarovsky, p. 102).
• Jakobson’s Poetic Function
  Roman Jakobson’s model describes the “poetic function” as language focusing on the message itself. He argues that the poetic function is prevalent in all linguistic activities but is dominant in poetry (p. 104-105).
• Challenges to Literary/Non-literary Dichotomy
  Critics, such as Mary Louise Pratt, argue that the distinction between literary and non-literary language is circular, as it depends on pre-existing cultural recognition of a text as “literary” (p. 106).
• Functionalist View of Language
  Fowler suggests a functional definition of literature, viewing it as a socially recognized set of texts with institutional values, rather than possessing unique linguistic properties (Fowler, p. 111).
• Speech Act Theory in Literary Analysis
  Austin’s Speech Act Theory, especially the concept of performatives, is significant in understanding language in literature as action, with illocutionary force guiding interpretation beyond literal meaning (p. 113-115).
• Pragmatics and Implicature in Literary Discourse
  Grice’s concept of implicature and cooperative principles are applied to literary analysis, recognizing that readers infer meaning based on shared assumptions, which allows for layered interpretations in literary texts (p. 115-116).
• Multiplicity of Discourses in Society
  Herman concludes that literary language is one of many discourses in society. Rather than viewing literature as fundamentally separate, it should be considered within a continuum of diverse linguistic uses (p. 119).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

Contribution of “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

Criticism Against “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

• Reliance on Structuralist Foundations
  Herman’s work heavily references structuralist ideas, which some critics argue limits its adaptability to post-structuralist or contemporary perspectives. Her reliance on theories from the Russian Formalists and Prague School may be seen as restrictive, especially in light of more recent, fluid definitions of literariness.
• Overemphasis on Linguistic Formalism
  The focus on linguistic formalism, such as syntax, phonology, and structural patterns, may sideline other important aspects of literary study, such as emotional resonance, reader response, and cultural context. This approach risks viewing literature too mechanically, rather than as a living, evolving art form.
• Neglect of Reader-Response Perspectives
  While Herman acknowledges the importance of context and pragmatics, her framework lacks an in-depth engagement with reader-response theory, which emphasizes how individual readers’ interpretations and experiences shape meaning. This omission might be seen as a gap in a theory meant to understand “literariness.”
• Challenges to the Universality of Pragmatic Analysis
  Herman applies linguistic pragmatics broadly, yet some critics argue that this generalization does not adequately account for the distinctiveness of literature. Treating literary language as merely another form of “language in use” may dilute the unique ways literature engages with meaning, metaphor, and imagination.
• Ambiguity in Defining ‘Literariness’
  Although Herman critiques the binary distinction between literary and non-literary language, her own definitions of “literariness” remain somewhat ambiguous. Critics argue that the lack of a clear, actionable definition can make her framework difficult to apply consistently across different literary works.
• Limited Engagement with Cultural and Ideological Contexts
  Herman’s linguistic approach to literary analysis may overlook the influence of cultural and ideological factors that shape literature. By focusing predominantly on the language mechanics, she might neglect the sociopolitical, historical, or ethical dimensions that deeply influence literary texts and their interpretations.

Representative Quotations from “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman with Explanation

1. “Literariness as a defining property of the literary has been most fully investigated with relation to language” (Herman, 1983, p. 100).
   • This sentence underscores how the concept of “literariness” is primarily explored through linguistic study, emphasizing its foundational role in defining literary language.
2. “Literary language is fictional, and therefore, non-referential, while non-fictional language, or ‘ordinary’ language, is defined by the property of reference” (Herman, 1983, p. 100).
   • Herman distinguishes literary language as creating its own realm of meaning, contrasting with factual, referential language.
3. “The role of modern linguistics, first structural, then transformational, has had an uneasy history, either as basic to the definition of literary language…or of no value at all” (Herman, 1983, p. 101).
   • This quote reflects the contentious relationship between linguistics and literary studies, particularly as scholars debate the relevance of structural and transformational linguistics.
4. “Foregrounding achieves maximum intensity to the extent of pushing communication into the background as the objective of expression” (Herman, 1983, p. 102).
   • Here, Herman discusses “foregrounding” as a feature where language is highlighted for its aesthetic qualities, allowing expression itself to take precedence over straightforward communication.
5. “The set (Einstellung) towards the message as such, focus on the message for its own sake, is the POETIC function of language” (Jakobson, as cited in Herman, 1983, p. 103).
   • Quoting Jakobson, Herman explains the poetic function of language as one that prioritizes the form and structure of the message, apart from its referential content.
6. “Language in literary use shares all the properties and processes of the medium in which it is constructed, initially” (Herman, 1983, p. 107).
   • This statement reinforces Herman’s view that literary language does not exist in isolation from general language structures and norms; it emerges from these shared properties.
7. “The formalist program for a literary language was originally motivated by the desire to separate literary studies from its traditional orientations” (Herman, 1983, p. 105).
   • Herman highlights the intention of formalism to establish a distinct study of literary language, distancing it from fields like psychology, biography, and history.
8. “The set of rules appropriate to a language…can also be presumed to have inventories of variable forms to correlate with appropriate functions in contexts of use” (Herman, 1983, p. 110).
   • This reflects Herman’s recognition of language’s adaptability, where linguistic forms vary contextually to fulfill different communicative functions.
9. “Both defamiliarization and patterning could be restored to considerations of literary discourse, as the functional processes they are” (Herman, 1983, p. 120).
   • Herman advocates for understanding literary devices such as defamiliarization and patterning as functional aspects of literary discourse, each serving specific communicative purposes.
10. “Patterning exists in many discourses…its literary use is one among many” (Herman, 1983, p. 119).
    • Herman observes that while patterning is central to literary texts, it also appears in various discourses, functioning in diverse communicative ways.

Suggested Readings: “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

1. Herman, V. (1983). Introduction: Literariness and linguistics. Prose Studies, 6(2), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01440358308586189
2. Carter, R., & Nash, W. (1983). Language and literariness. Prose Studies, 6(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01440358308586190

Introduction: “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

“Determining Literariness in Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall first appeared in 1988 in the journal Computers and the Humanities. Randall’s article delves into the notion of “literariness” in the emerging genre of interactive fiction, exploring whether this medium, primarily associated with computer-based text adventures, can achieve the hallmarks of literary value. Drawing on Russian Formalist Viktor Shklovskij’s concept of ostranenie, or “making strange,” Randall evaluates how interactive fiction both defamiliarizes familiar elements and familiarizes the strange. By examining works like Mindwheel, Brimstone, Breakers, A Mind Forever Voyaging, Portal, and Trinity, he argues that these interactive narratives display qualities traditionally associated with literary art. Randall sees these stories as expanding literary traditions through their fusion of reader interactivity with literary elements, creating new forms of narrative experience that engage readers on both a cognitive and participatory level. This work is significant for its early theoretical exploration of interactive fiction within the domain of literary theory, situating it as a medium that bridges storytelling and reader agency, and underscoring its potential to reshape our understanding of narrative structure and reader involvement in literature.

Summary of “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

Contribution of “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

Criticism Against “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

• Over-Reliance on Traditional Literary Theories
  Randall applies established theories like Russian Formalism and Reader-Response Theory to interactive fiction, but critics may argue that these frameworks do not fully capture the uniqueness of interactive media, which operates differently from static texts.
• Narrow Definition of Literariness
  The article’s focus on ostranenie (defamiliarization) as a defining feature of literariness may be seen as limiting, as it excludes other literary qualities such as emotional depth, character development, or narrative cohesion, which are often valued in literary works.
• Limited Scope of Interactive Works Analyzed
  Randall’s analysis centers on a handful of specific interactive works (e.g., Mindwheel, Brimstone), leading to questions about whether his conclusions apply broadly across the genre, especially given the wide variety of styles and formats within interactive fiction.
• Assumption of Canonization Potential
  Randall suggests that interactive fiction could enter the literary canon, but critics may argue that his claims about canonization overlook how digital media and traditional literature are often evaluated by different standards and within distinct cultural contexts.
• Minimal Engagement with Gameplay Mechanics
  Randall’s analysis emphasizes literary aspects while downplaying how gameplay mechanics themselves influence the storytelling and literary potential of interactive fiction. This focus may overlook how the unique interactivity and structure of these games create meaning outside of literary tradition.
• Underexplored Reader Agency in Complex Narratives
  While Randall highlights reader interaction as enhancing literariness, he does not fully address how excessive player agency or fragmented narratives might detract from a coherent or traditionally “literary” experience, raising questions about narrative control in interactive fiction.

Representative Quotations from “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

1. Randall, Neil. “Determining Literariness in Interactive Fiction.” Computers and the Humanities, vol. 22, no. 3, 1988, pp. 183–91. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30200120. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.
2. Rockwell, Geoffrey. “Gore Galore: Literary Theory and Computer Games.” Computers and the Humanities, vol. 36, no. 3, 2002, pp. 345–58. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30200532. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.
3. “Front Matter.” Computers and the Humanities, vol. 22, no. 3, 1988. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30200117. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.