Fictocriticism
From WRTwiki
- Is 'fictocriticism' (the same as) WRITER RESPONSE THEORY?*
Group edit for a post on the home page. Our original replies are here for reference, and we can compose the merged document in the "Working Draft" section.
Contents |
Working Draft
Defining what fictocriticism is - as a practice, historically, etc. Briefly describing how WRT (the name / idea / manifesto-announcement) came to be) Comparing it to fictocriticism - as a practice, historically
Original Replies
Jeremy's Reply
What a good question!
I have to admit, I was not familiar with the term 'fictocriticism,' although Christy might be. A bit of flogging the libraries / search engines, and here is the definition I am able to come up with (corrections appreciated):
Fictocriticism is a writing practice characterized by a mix of critical and fictive language. Much like the terms paracriticism and post-criticism, fictocriticism is a postmodern concept - it explicitly rejects the separation of two genres of writing (critical discourse and fiction) by combining them.
Unlike the terms para- and post-criticism, fictocriticism is not structuralist, but feminist in conception. It is also a uniquely Australian movement. According to scholar and longtime fictocritic <a href="http://www.griffith.edu.au/school/art/text/oct97/gibbs.htm">Anna Gibbs</a>, fictocriticism began as a reaction in the writing community to the essays of feminist critics such as Cixous and Irigaray for a more authentically feminine and bodily, and later moved into the University as a pedagogical practice.
The only book I was able to located was <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1876268115/">The Space Between - Australian Women Writing Fictocriticism<a/>, a collection edited by Heather Kerr and Amanda Nettelbeck. Most web-accessible citations on <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fictocriticism">Google Scholar</a> are Australian, with several appearing in <a href="http://www.gu.edu.au/school/art/text/">Text: The Journal of the Australian Association of Writing Programs</a>).
....Based on that understanding of fictocriticism, here is my reply:
Writer Response Theory is a banner and a manifesto under which a few humanities scholars interested in studying interactive text have gathered. It has been around scarcely a year, and is a small group, so characterizing it may be premature.
Like many areas of contemporary theory, writer response theory proposes a type of practice. Like fictocriticism, WRT was born out of an excitement over new possibilities, and responds by proposing the combination of critical and creative practices. Like fictocriticism, this has many pedagogical implications, and we are passionate not just about practicing but about teaching.
Unlike fictocriticism, writer response theory is inspired by exciting developments in digital technology and the arts - New Media. It is less about a different mode of discourse in which certain kinds of writing can count as critical (ecriture feminine, etc.) and more about different modes of production in which reading and writing mix (interactivity, wreading, Smart Mobs, networked performance, etc.)
Perhaps the biggest aesthetic difference between WRT and fictocriticsm is our interest in authoring less as immediacy or testimonial and more as mediation, prototyping, experiment, procedure, abstraction, implementation... software development as the engineering of ideas. We resonate with the sentiment of TADA that <a href="http://tada.mcmaster.ca/">"Real humanists make tools"</a> and nod approvingly at the headline <a href="http://www.poemsthatgo.com/">"Poems that Go."</a> One of our projects, "Benchmark Fiction," could be described as writing a series of interfaces to an extent story!
Like fictocriticism, writer response theory is partly transgressive. Just as early fictocritics in the university probably risked being disciplined for not writing 'serious' criticism, it isn't clear whether or not WRT as an activity will be condoned by the profession of humanities and art critics. However, even not knowing the history of Australian feminism in the 70s and 80s, I would still venture that WRT doesn't face anything remotely as daunting in terms of cultural backlash.
Christy's Reply
Hello Jillie,
'Writer Response Theory' is a term that we (Jeremy, Mark and I) came up with to describe what we do: 'writers or creators responding to theory; as writers creating theory, a theory which is also a response to writers'. It is not, as far as I am aware, a recognised term to describe a field of inquiry. It is related, however, to Reader Response Theory and Fictocriticism. Fictocriticism, as far as I know it (please illuminate this discussion if I'm off the ball), is a form of criticism that combines fictive elements as a device. The writing includes
"self reflexivity, the fragment, intertextuality, the bending of narrative boundaries, crossing of genres, the capacity to adapt literary forms, hybridized writing, moving between fiction (invention/speculation) and criticism (deduction/explication) of subjectivity (interiority) and objectivity (exteriority)". [<a href="http://www.gu.edu.au/school/art/text/april99/prosser.htm" rel="nofollow">source</a>]
We do utilise different techniques in our posts, sometimes telling stories, sometimes reviewing, sometimes reporting, sometimes analysing, sometimes playing games...all as a way of understanding the subject matter (what we refer to and ourselves) better and as a way of expressing ourselves creatively.
So you see, it does relate, but we are not invoking some field of inquiry in the term -- just playing with words. :)
Mark's Reply
Christy and Jeremy,
You both do wonderful work. Jeremy, can you open a wiki regarding this if you haven't already. I'd like to work on combining your reply with Christy's there and I'd like to suggest a few changes.
It sounds like what we do is not exactly fictocriticism, but has many affinities.
We write-back to theory We rewrite interfaces using theories (and hunches) We respond to theories by writing, testing them out
The lines are blurred as you both have written, but I think you both put it correctly that our heritage from Reader Response Theory, and perhaps Barthes' Writerly Texts, posits the reader as an interactor, the critic as a creator, and the interface as something that encourages both.
Let's develop this response and post next week. We could always let Jillie know that her post has spawned our longer discussion with posts forthcoming.
You two are so excellent!! Mark
