Fictional Characters in Literary Theory — A Short History
E-REA January 9, 2025 DOI: 10.4000/11w9t (opens in new tab) via DOAJ
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThis article traces the history of character theory in literary studies from structuralism to current 4E cognition approaches. It argues that the influential (post)structuralist conception of characters as signs, symbols, and plot functions, still prominent in scholarship, fails to account for the fascination literary figures exert on readers. Focusing on narratology, the article shows how this "antihumanist" view has been challenged over recent decades, and how new theoretical developments in character theory are closely linked to broader shifts in literary theory.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Embodiment Narratology Literary character Poststructuralism Theory of mind |
| Key finding | Argues that the (post)structuralist conception of characters as signs and plot functions fails to explain readers' fascination with literary figures, and that newer approaches in character theory are intertwined with broader developments in literary theory. |
Abstract
This contribution to the special issue on “The Persistence of Character” provides a brief history of approaches to fictional characters in literary studies, from the emergence of structuralism to current explorations of fictional beings in the context of 4E cognition. By sketching the different stages in the development of character theory since the mid-twentieth century the article shows that the influential (post)structuralist conception of characters as signs, symbols, and (plot) functions, which still occupies a key position in literary scholarship today, fails to do justice to the fascination literary figures frequently exert on readers. With a particular focus on the field of narratology, the article traces the ways in which this “antihumanist” (Felski) conception of fictional characters has been challenged over the past decades. Furthermore, it demonstrates how new theoretical developments in this field tend to be closely intertwined with overarching developments in literary theory in general.