The paradox of suspense

British Journal of Aesthetics

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 146-158

  Yanal, Robert J ^a  

^a WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645337685     PISSN: 00070904     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bjaesthetics/36.2.146     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Martin Amis, London Fields (New York: Vintage Books, 1991).
2. 'Specifically, suspense in fiction generally results when the possible outcomes of the situation set down by the story are such that the outcome that is morally correct, in terms of the values inherent in the fiction, is the less likely outcome.'; Noël Carroll, The Philosophy of Horror (New York: Routledge, 1990), pp. 137-138.
3. Kendall Walton, Mimesis as Make-Believe (Cambridge: Harvard U.P., 1990), p. 261.
4. Richard J. Gerrig, Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1993), p. 159.
5. Walton, Mimesis as Make-Believe, pp. 196 ff.
6. Richard J. Gerrig, 'Reexperiencing Fiction and Non-Fiction', The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 47, 1989, p. 279.
7. 'Anomalous replotting', which Gerrig pairs with anomalous suspense, occurs when we re-encounter a well-known narrative - Gerrig's example is the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger - and find ourselves 'watching the first few seconds of lift-off and crying out mentally, 'Make it!' - though we know it will not. This is not quite paradox, for it shows only that we sometimes wish for an outcome different than the one that came about. See Gerrig, Experiencing Narrative Worlds, p. 177.
8. Harold Skulsky, 'On Being Moved by Fiction', The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 39, 1980, p. 13.
9. Kendall Walton's comments on a version of this paper read at a session of the 1995 Chicago American Philosophical Association forced some revisions. Richard Gerrig, who chaired that session, made me aware of his book and the broader psychological context of his theory. I thank both of them, though I should note that my paper persuaded neither away from his view. I would also like to acknowledge the reference books that jogged my memory more than once: Leonard Maltin's Movie Encyclopedia (New York: Dutton, 1994);
10. Roger Ebert's Video Companion (Kansas City: Andrews, McMeel & Parket, 1993);
11. James Monaco, The Encyclopedia of Film (New York: Perigee Books, 1991);
12. and The Motion Picture Guide (Chicago: Cinebooks, 1985).