Scott's Hi/story Telling -- a Postmodern Reading of Kenilworth. (Literature)

The coexistence of and fiction is a defining characteristic of historical novel. Numerous critics claim that approach to two conflicting elements constituting genre has not been uniform. In past, traditional historical novels, fictional character of narrative was consciously concealed whereas contemporary historical novels fictionality has been problematized (Hansson 1998: 114-115). However, James Kerr Fiction against history, an influential study on inventor of genre, Walter Scott, proves that this distinction is an oversimplification. It is true that Scott was celebrated an accurate depictor of past ... faithfully portraying crucial social and political changes of British history. Yet, as Kerr emphasises, Scott was aware of the fictionality of his narratives [and] he deliberately played fiction and off against one another, not only as artifice and reality, but as codified forms of written discourse (1989: 1-2). In this presentation I will attempt to address three questions: firstly, impact of changing cultural perspective on interpretation of classic texts, then interrelation of and so vital postmodern theories, and finally new meanings that a traditional text engenders when judged from new perspective. To illustrate my points I will use Walter Scott's Kenilworth, published 1821, a novel which is both a realistic account of past events and a self-conscious commentary on how strongly account is permeated by fiction. The fact that in Scott's own time, popularity of Waverley novels rested largely on perceived reality of his writing (Kerr 1989: 2) proves that nineteenth century reader was more likely to appreciate fairly realist story of Amelia Robsart's death than self-conscious remarks of how story was actually constructed. The contemporary reader of today, bearing mind postmodern revelations about inherence of interpretation any historical accounts, significance of context determination of meaning, interplay of meanings or about diversity of sources out of which historical accounts are constructed, will probably concentrate on dissolution of boundary between and fiction detectable Scott's novels. Thus, perception of Kenilworth through eyes of contemporary reader will foreground those of its aspects that traditional reading were underplayed. In light of contemporary theories texts do not inherent meanings. Quite contrary is true, each text coexists with other texts, each is engaged intertextual weaving, a situation that Harvey describes following way: writers who create texts or use words do so on basis of texts and words they encountered, while readers deal with them same way (1993: 49). Therefore, same text can be differently interpreted depending on context of its origin and reception, best illustration of which was provided by Borges' story Pierre Menard, Author of Quixote. After Borges' story, where he demonstrates how disparate meanings same excerpt of Don Quixote reveals depending on cultural context which it is inscribed, it is legitimate to read Kenilworth if it were posterior to historiographic met afiction and to reveal meanings that so far been latent text. The relationship of and literature has never been easy to define. Despite numerous endeavours to delineate a rigid boundary between two disciplines, history and fiction, to quote Hutcheon, have been notoriously porous genres (1993: 106). Aristotle, for instance, maintained that governing principle of historical narratives should be time contrast to plot which was to organise events depicted literary narratives (Topolski 1998: 8). Since late medieval times it has become clear that time or, more specifically, chronology does not suffice to bind recounted events into a proper historical account. …