The Literary Jurisprudential Dimension Of Fiction And Reality

The question of slanders that novels raised to the judgment of laws is a cross-disciplinary one. From a perspective of literary jurisprudence, this study attempts to study the notion of novel underlying judicial practices dealing with the damaging of the right of reputation by novel writings.Introduction briefly sketches current studies in the field of literary jurisprudence, examines issues about citizens'right of reputation under protections of judicial institutions, and then puts forward the view that disputations on damaging the right of reputation by novel writings should be resolved by co-discussions of both jurisprudential and literary circles.Chapter 1 summarizes the judicial practices concerning the damages of the right of reputation by novel writings in recent three decades. One can find from these practices that a set of criteria of judging whether some novel has slandered are inherent within the operation of judicial circles. By the same token, these practices enable one to find out the very notion of novel in judges' mind. It is clear that most judges are dominated by the traditional reflective idea on the question "what is the reality of novels," and thus inevitably gives rise to many controversies about their justice in judging cases of slanders.In Chapter 2, by discussing the traditional reflective idea of the reality of novels, the author has arrived at the conclution that it is their fundamental notion of novel that plays a significant role in limiting their scopes when judges decide to make judgments on novels. This study holds that judges should to some extent adjust their given views of novel and be aware that "fiction" lies at the heart of novels. It is essential to novels'constitution that they fictionalize. We can approach the "fictionality" of novel in three different aspects:the fiction 1) as a method of creating; 2) as a characteristic of aesthetics; and 3) as constituting the ontological being of novel.Chapter 3 lays emphasis on three contradictions between the judicial practice dealing with slanders of novel and novel writings:1) the contradiction between the "fictionality" of novel and the positiveness of judicial practice; 2) the contradiction between the totality of novel and the fragmentation of judicial practice; and 3) the contradiction between the emphasis novels put on "text" and the emphasis juridical practices put on "motive.' Confronting with these contradictions, the study holds the idea that the extent to which one novel fictionalizes could be taken as the stake of literary jurisprudence, by which knotty problems in judicial operations would be resolved. Also, judicial practices should be guided from diverse perspectives including that of judges, authors, and readers.Conclusion suggests the inadequacy of only taking recourse either to literary dimension or to jurisprudential dimension when probing the significance of lawsuits of the circle of letters.