In many discussions, the implied author is paired with a recipient entity occupying a supposedly equivalent position on the opposite side of the communication situation: the
“implied reader” (as in Booth 1961), to be distinguished from the addressee of the fictive narrator, known as the “narratee” (Prince 1971) or “fictive reader” (Schmid 1973).
Among the theorists who have worked on the implied reader, Iser (1972, 1976) deserves special mention. In the first, German version of The Act of Reading, Iser describes the implied reader (or impliziter Leser, as he calls it) as a “structure inscribed in the texts” not having any real existence (Iser 1976: 60). He then goes on (to quote his subsequent English version of the text) to say that the implied reader “embodies all those predispositions necessary for a literary work to exercise its effect—predispositions laid down, not by an empirical outside reality, but by the text itself. Consequently, the implied reader as a concept has his roots firmly planted in the structure of the text; he is a construct and in no way to be identified with any real reader” (Iser 1978: 34).
Červenka ([1969] 1978: 174–75) characterizes the “addressee’s personality,” by which he means the implied reader, with the statement that “if the subject of the work was the correlate of the totality of the acts of creative choice, then the overall meaning of the work’s addressee is the totality of the interpretive abilities required: the ability to use the same codes and develop their material analogously to the creative activity of the speaker, the ability to transform the potentiality of the work into an aesthetic object.” In Russia, following on from Korman, Rymar’ & Skobelev (1994: 119–21) use the term “conceived reader.” Korman (1977: 127) himself had paired the “author as bearer of the work’s concept” with the corresponding entity of the “reader as postulated addressee, ideal principle of reception.”
Similarly, Eco (1979) pairs the “model author” with the “model reader,” defined by him as a hypothesis formed by the empirical author.
It is tempting to assume, as several theorists have indeed done, that the relationship between implied author and implied reader is a symmetrical one. If the implied author is an image of
the real author created by the real reader, then, we might be inclined to conclude, the implied reader must be the image of the real reader envisaged by the real author. The true state of affairs, of course, is more complicated, for there is no symmetry between the ways in which the two abstract entities are formed. The implied reader is ultimately one of the attributes of the concrete reader’s reconstructed implied author. It follows that the implied reader is no less dependent on the reader’s individual acts of reconstruction than the implied author whose attribute it is.
Two hypostases of the (re)constructed implied reader should be distinguished on the basis of the functions it can be thought to have. First, the implied reader can be seen as an assumed addressee to whom the work is directed and whose linguistic codes, ideological norms, and aesthetic ideas must be taken account of if the work is to be understood. In this function, the implied reader bears the factual codes and norms that it is assumed the audience will use.
Second, the implied reader can be seen as an image of the ideal recipient who understands the work in a way that optimally matches its structure and who adopts the interpretive position and aesthetic standpoint put forward by the work (Schmid [2005] 2008: 68–72, 2007).
4 Topics for Further Research
(a) Where systematic considerations and practical applications are concerned, there is a pressing need to identify the indexical signs that refer to the implied author, and to distinguish between author- and narrator-specific indexes. (b) The manifestation of the implied author in different periods, cultural spheres, text types, and genres has yet to be examined in detail.
(Translated by Alastair Matthews)
5 Bibliography
5.1 Works Cited
• Bal, Mieke (1981a). “The Laughing Mice, or: on Focalisation.” Poetics Today 2, 202–
10.
• Bal, Mieke (1981b). “Notes on Narrative Embedding.” Poetics Today 2, 41–59.
• Balcerzan, Edward (1968). “Styl i poetyka twórczości dwujęzycznej Brunona Jasińskiego.” Z zagadnień teorii przekładu. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im.
Ossolinskich, 14–16.
• Booth, Wayne C. ([1961] 1983). The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: Chicago UP.
• Booth, Wayne C. (1968). “‘The Rhetoric of Fiction’ and the Poetics of Fictions.”
Novel: A Forum on Fiction 1, 105–17.
• Booth, Wayne C. (1979). Critical Understanding: The Powers and Limits of Pluralism. Chicago: Chicago UP.
• Bronzwaer, Wilhelmus J. M. (1978). “Implied Author, Extradiegetic Narrator and Public Reader.” Neophilologus 62, 1–18.
• Bühler, Karl (1918/20). “Kritische Musterung der neueren Theorien des Satzes.”
Indogermanisches Jahrbuch 4, 1–20.
• Červenka, Miroslav ([1969] 1978). “Das literarische Werk als Zeichen.” Der Bedeutungsaufbau des literarischen Werks. München: Fink, 163–83.
• Chatman, Seymour (1978). Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
• Chatman, Seymour (1990). Coming to Terms. The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
• Čudakov, Aleksandr (1992). “V. V. Vinogradov i ego teorija poėtiki.”
Slovo―vešč’―mir. Moskva: Sovremennyj pisatel’, 219–64.
• Diengott, Nilli (1993). “Implied Author, Motivation and Theme and Their Problematic Status.” Orbis Litterarum 48, 181–93.
• Easthope, Antony (1983). Poetry as Discourse. London: Methuen.
• Eco, Umberto (1979). The Role of the Reader. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
• Fieguth, Rolf (1975). “Einleitung.” R. F. Literarische Kommunikation. Kronberg:
Scriptor, 9–22.
• Genette, Gérard ([1972] 1980). Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca:
Cornell UP.
• Genette, Gérard ([1983] 1988). Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
• Gölz, Christine (2009). “Autortheorien im slavischen Funktionalismus.” W. Schmid (ed). Slavische Erzähltheorie. Russische und tschechische Ansätze. Berlin: de Gruyter, 187–237.
• Hempfer, Klaus W. (1977). “Zur pragmatischen Fundierung der Texttypologie.” W.
Hinck (ed). Textsortenlehre―Gattungsgeschichte. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1–26.
• Hoek, Leo H. (1981). La marque du titre. La Haye: Mouton.
• Hühn, Peter (1995). Geschichte der englischen Lyrik, vol. 1. Tübingen: Francke.
• Iser, Wolfgang ([1972] 1974). The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
• Iser, Wolfgang (1976). Der Akt des Lesens: Theorie ästhetischer Wirkung. München:
Fink.
• Iser, Wolfgang (1978). The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
• Kindt, Tom & Hans-Harald Müller (1999). “Der implizite Autor. Zur Explikation und Verwendung eines umstrittenen Begriffs.” F. Jannidis et al. (eds). Rückkehr des Autors. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 273–87.
• Kindt, Tom & Hans-Harald Müller (2006a). The Implied Author. Concept and Controversy. Berlin: de Gruyter.
• Kindt, Tom & Hans-Harald Müller (2006b). “Der implizite Autor. Zur Karriere und Kritik eines Begriffs zwischen Narratologie und Interpretationstheorie.” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 48, 163–90.
• Korman, Boris (1977). “O celostnosti literaturnogo proizvedenija.” Izbrannye trudy po teorii i istorii literatury. Iževsk: Izd. Udmurtskogo un-ta, 119–28.
• Link, Hannelore (1976). Rezeptionsforschung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
• Lintvelt, Jaap ([1981] 1989). Essai de typologie narrative. Le “point de vue.” Théorie
et analyse. Paris: Corti.
• Mukařovský, Jan (1937). “L’individu dans l’art.” Deuxième congrès international d’esthétique et de la science de l’art. Paris: F. Alcan, vol. 1, 349–54.
• Nünning, Ansgar (1989). Grundzüge eines kommunikationstheoretischen Modells der erzählerischen Vermittlung. Trier: WVT.
• Nünning, Ansgar (1993). “Renaissance eines anthropomorphisierten Passepartouts oder Nachruf auf ein literaturkritisches Phantom? Überlegungen und Alternativen zum Konzept des ‘implied author’.” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 67, 1–25.
• Okopień-Sławińska, Alexandra ([1971] 1975). “Die personalen Relationen in der literarischen Kommunikation.” R. Fieguth (ed). Literarische Kommunikation.
Kronberg: Scriptor, 127–47.
• Prince, Gerald (1971). “Notes toward a Characterization of Fictional Narratees.”
Genre 4, 100–06.
• Rimmon, Shlomith (1976). “A Comprehensive Theory of Narrative: Genette’s Figures III and the Structuralist Study of Fiction.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1, 33–62.
• Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith ([1983] 2002). Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics.
London: Methuen.
• Rymar’, Nikolaj & Vladislav Skobelev (1994). Teorija avtora i problema chudožestvennoj dejatel’nosti. Voronež: Logos-Trast.
• Schmid, Wolf (1973). Der Textaufbau in den Erzählungen Dostoevskijs. Amsterdam:
Grüner.
• Schmid, Wolf (1986). “Nachwort zur zweiten Auflage. Eine Antwort an die Kritiker.”
W. Sch. Der Textaufbau in den Erzählungen Dostoevskijs. Amsterdam: Grüner, 299–
318.
• Schmid, Wolf ([2005] 2008). Elemente der Narratologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
• Schmid, Wolf (2007). “Textadressat.” Th. Anz (ed). Handbuch Literaturwissenschaft.
Stuttgart: Metzler, vol. 1, 171–81.
• Sławiński, Janusz (1966). “O kategorii podmiotu lirycznego. Tezy referatu.” J.
Trzynadłowski (ed). Wiersz i poezja. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, 55–62.
• Sławiński, Janusz ([1967] 1975). “Die Semantik der narrativen Äußerung.” Literatur als System und Prozeß. München: Nymphenburger, 81–109.
• Toolan, Michael J. ([1988] 2001). Narrative. A Critical Linguistic Introduction.
London: Routledge.
• Tynjanov, Jurij ([1927] 1971). “On Literary Evolution.” L. Matejka & K. Pomorska (eds). Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views. Cambridge:
MIT P, 66–78.
• Vinogradov, Viktor (1971). “Problema obraza avtora v chudožestvennoj literature.” O teorii chudožestvennoj reči. Moskva: Izd. Vysšaja škola, 105–211.
• Wimsatt, William K. & Monroe C. Beardsley ([1946] 1976). “The Intentional Fallacy.” D. Newton-de Molina (ed). On Literary Intention. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1–13.
• Zipfel, Frank (2001). Fiktion, Fiktivität, Fiktionalität. Berlin: Schmidt.
5.2 Further Reading
• Kahrmann, Cordula, et al. ([1977] 1996). Erzähltextanalyse. Weinheim: Beltz.
• Schönert, Jörg (1999). “Empirischer Autor, Impliziter Autor und Lyrisches Ich.” F.
Jannidis et al. (eds): Rückkehr des Autors. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 289–94.
• Suleiman, Susan R. & Inge Crosman eds. (1980). The Reader in the Text. Princeton:
Princeton UP.
Alber, Jan & Fludernik, Monika: "Mediacy and Narrative Mediation". 12 Mar 2012. Hühn, Peter et al. (eds.): the living handbbook of narratology. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press.
http://hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de/lhn/index.php?
title=Mediacy_and_Narrative_Mediation&oldid=1453