|
|
|
|
|
|
WNsn of the fabula checking it (let it be WNs2), the WRsm is approved by the fabula and the two worlds are mutually accessible. When it is not, WRs1 is disproved and the two worlds are mutually inaccessible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is enough to think of a reader who joins Oedipus in making false forecasts about the possible course of events, to discover that the situation of the reader is not different from that of Oedipus. One could object that (as maintained in 8.1.2) all the forecasts of the reader have not only been foreseen but also elicited by the text, and therefore the text should have taken them into account. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But once more one must carefully distinguish between (i) the text as a semantico-pragmatic process (which takes into account possible cooperation on the part of the reader), (ii) the plot as a strategy of semantic devices intended to elicit the pragmatic cooperation, and (iii) the fabula as a possible world with all its states and its structure of S-necessary properties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The text as a multileveled structure 'knows' that the reader will probably behave in certain ways; it 'knows' that the reader will produce S-necessary properties that the fabula will ignore. But the text is not a possible worldnor is the plot. It is a piece of the furniture of the world in which the reader also lives, and it is a machine for producing possible worlds (of the fabula, of the characters within the fabula, and of the reader outside the fabula). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can say that, in setting up a fictional text, its author formulates many hypotheses and forecasts apropos of the pragmatic behavior of his Model Reader. But this is a matter of the author's intentions. These intentions can be extrapolated from the text (as I am doing with Drame), but they are intentions, wishes, projects belonging to the 'actual' world and to this actual speech act which is the text. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One can say that the phrase /today it is raining/ is a speech act with a particular perlocutionary effect when uttered to convince somebody not to go out. And one can speculate about the possible world of the wishes of the utterer of such a phrase. But the phrase in itself does not outline a possible world, and the two levels of analysis must be kept independent of each other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, between the world of the fabula and the world of reader's wrong forecasts, there is no accessibility. If they are wrong it is so because the reader has imagined individuals and properties that the world of the fabula could not conceive of. When the reader realizes his mistake he does not manipulate his possible (wrong) world to come back to the story. He simply throws it out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously, all this does not seem to fit the picture of Drame. In fact, it does and it does not. Apparently, the accident can be summarized as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|