Unnatural Narration beyond Postmodernist Alterities

Postmodernism has frequently employed unnatural narration with the aim to disturb and subvert conventionalized reading practices. Postmodernist discourses thus widely associate the unnatural with alterity, marginality and the suppressed. In this paper, I caution against such a perspective, which threatens to unduly limit our understanding of the broad variety of relations between natural and unnatural narrative on the one hand, and of the multiple possible functions of unnatural narratives on the other. Taking my cue from the use of unnatural narration in a number of recent novels, like Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves (2000), Michael Chabon’s Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay (2000), or Yann Martel’s Life of Pi (2001), I will argue that a postmodernist approach which foregrounds ontological and epistemological questions and emphasizes alterity and subversion remains blind to some of the pragmatic implications that are the main concern of the unnatural narratives under consideration. This not only begs the question whether and in how far such a shift from ontological and epistemological towards pragmatic concerns constitutes a move beyond postmodernism, but also calls for a reconsideration of some of our widely established theories and assumptions about unnatural narratives.

The Transmission of Manuscripts and the Genetics of Texts. A new critical edition of Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival

The discussion on the New Philology triggered by French and North American scholars in the last decade of the 20th century emphasized the material character of textual transmission inside and outside the written evidences of medieval manuscripts by downgrading the active role of the historical author. However, the reception of the ideas propagated by the New Philology adherents was rather divided. Some researchers questioned its innovative status (K. Stackmann: “Neue Philologie?”), others saw a new era of the “powers of philology” evoked (H.-U. Gumbrecht). Besides the debates on the New Philology another concept of textual materiality strengthened in the last decade, maintaining that textual alterations somewhat relate to biogenetic mutations. In a matter of fact, phenomena such as genetic and textual variation, gene recombination and ‘contamination’ (the mixing of different exemplars in one manuscript text) share common features. The paper discusses to what extent the biogenetic concepts can be used for evaluating manifestations of textual production (as the approach of ‘critique génétique’ does) and of textual transmission (as the phylogenetic analysis of manuscript variation does). In this context yet the genealogical concept of stemmatology – the treelike representation of textual development abhorred by the New Philology adepts – might prove to be useful for describing the history of texts. The textual material to be analyzed will be drawn from the Parzival Project, which is currently preparing a new electronic edition of Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival novel written shortly after 1200 and transmitted in numerous manuscripts up to the age of printing (www.parzival.unibe.ch). Researches of the project have actually resulted in suggesting that the advanced knowledge of the manuscript transmission yields a more precise idea on the author’s own writing process.

Prevalence of erosive tooth wear and associated factors in a group of Mexican adolescents.

BACKGROUND Erosive tooth wear is the irreversible loss of dental hard tissue as a result of chemical processes. When the surface of a tooth is attacked by acids, the resulting loss of structural integrity leaves a softened layer on the tooth's surface, which renders it vulnerable to abrasive forces. The authors' objective was to estimate the prevalence of erosive tooth wear and to identify associated factors in a sample of 14- to 19-year-old adolescents in Mexico. METHODS The authors performed a cross-sectional study on a convenience sample (N = 417) of adolescents in a school in Mexico City, Mexico. The authors used a questionnaire and an oral examination performed according to the Lussi index. RESULTS The prevalence of erosive tooth wear was 31.7% (10.8% with exposed dentin). The final logistic regression model included age (P < .01; odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-2.13), high intake of sweet carbonated drinks (P = .03; OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06-3.07), and xerostomia (P = .04; OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.05-5.09). CONCLUSIONS Erosive tooth wear, mainly on the mandibular first molars, was associated with age, high intake of sweet carbonated drinks, and xerostomia. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS Knowledge regarding erosive tooth wear in adolescents with relatively few years of exposure to causal factors will increase the focus on effective preventive measures, the identification of people at high risk, and early treatment.

A Forgotten Original or an Original Copy? On MS. Douce 387 in the Bodleian Library: Collecting Early Modern Festival Books

Focusing on one manuscript, today in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, this chapter deals with the question how early modern objects became collectable items. The manuscript is categorized as MS. Douce 387 and its name indicates that it came from the collection of Francis Douce (1757–1834), who was keeper of manuscripts in the British Museum from 1799 until 1811. MS. Douce 387 is described in the catalogue of the Douce’ian collection as the “presentation copy with coloured designs by Marten de Vos and others” of the 1595 printed festival book Descriptio publicae gratulationis … in adventu … Ernesti archiducis Austriae. This festival book, printed in Antwerp’s Plantin-Moretus press, was commissioned by the magistrate of the city of Antwerp to commemorate the Joyous Entry of Archduke Ernest of Austria from June 1594; that an “archducal copy” bound in red velvet was commissioned as well and was owned by the Archduke is know as well. However, first research showed that Oxford copy cannot be this “archducal copy” or Marten de Vos’s artist’s copy even though it is the only know version with a handwritten text and hand-drawn illustrations. It rather should be examined as something totally different altogether. The main question remains why someone then commissioned a hand made version of this festival book, something unknown for other books of this genre? Why would someone between 1600 and 1800 sit down and copy texts and prints from a collectable book? Why was there such an on-going interest in early modern festival books? Could this manuscript be the only later made copy of the “archducal volume” or is it rather a forgery made for the European collectors’ market?