Acceso usuarios
Jukka Mikkonen
In her study Fiction and Imagination: The Anthropological Function of Literature (2000), Margit Sutrop criticizes Gregory Currie�s theory of fictionmaking, 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.
