@article {alber_mimesis._2018,
	title = {Mimesis. The Unnatural between Situation Models and Interpretive Strategies},
	journal = {Poetics Today},
	volume = {39},
	number = {3},
	year = {2018},
	month = {sep},
	pages = {447{\textendash}471},
	issn = {0333-5372},
	doi = {10.1215/03335372-7032690},
	url = {https://read.dukeupress.edu/poetics-today/article-abstract/39/3/447/135653/MimesisThe-Unnatural-between-Situation-Models-and},
	author = {Alber, Jan and Caracciolo, Marco and Marchesini, Irina}
}
@article {478,
	title = {Notes for an econarratological theory of character},
	journal = {Frontiers of Narrative Studies},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2018},
	month = {2018///},
	pages = {s172 - s189},
	abstract = {Scientists and scholars in multiple fields have been discussing the current geological epoch under the heading of the {\textquotedblleft}Anthropocene{\textquotedblright} {\textendash} an era marked by the planetary impact of human activities (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000). The epistemological shift brought about by this notion exposes the latent anthropocentrism of narrative practices, raising a challenge taken up by narrative theorists such as Erin James (2015) and Alexa Weik von Mossner (2017) in the context of an {\textquotedblleft}econarratology.{\textquotedblright} In this article, I examine the prime suspect for anthropocentrism in narrative {\textendash} namely, the notion of character as intrinsically human-like. My point of departure is A. J. Greimas{\textquoteright}s (1976) actantial model of narrative, which I revisit and revise in light of work in the field of ecolinguistics (Goatly 1996). I thus explore five strategies through which narrative may integrate nonhuman characters that challenge both anthropocentrism and the subject-object binary that anthropocentrism entails. I exemplify these strategies by discussing contemporary novels that deal with the Anthropocenic entanglement of humanity and the nonhuman world.},
	keywords = {Anthropocene, Contemporary fiction, Ecocriticism, narrative, Nonhuman},
	isbn = {2509-4882},
	url = {https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/fns.2018.4.issue-s1/fns-2018-0037/fns-2018-0037.xml?format=INT},
	author = {Caracciolo, Marco}
}
@article {caracciolo_posthuman_2018,
	title = {Posthuman Narration as a Test Bed for Experientiality: The Case of Kurt Vonnegut{\textquoteright}s Gal{\'a}pagos},
	journal = {Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas},
	volume = {16},
	number = {2},
	year = {2018},
	month = {jun},
	pages = {303{\textendash}314},
	abstract = {ARRAY(0x56186796ad40)},
	issn = {1936-9247},
	doi = {10.1353/pan.2018.0021},
	url = {https://muse.jhu.edu/article/696177},
	author = {Caracciolo, Marco}
}
@article {van_lissa_difficult_2016,
	title = {Difficult Empathy. The Effect of Narrative Perspective on Readers{\textquoteright} Engagement with a First-Person Narrator},
	journal = {DIEGESIS},
	volume = {5},
	number = {1},
	year = {2016},
	url = {https://www.diegesis.uni-wuppertal.de/index.php/diegesis/article/view/211},
	author = {van Lissa, Caspar J. and Caracciolo, Marco and van Duuren, Thom and van Leuveren, Bram}
}
@book {caracciolo_passion_2016,
	title = {A Passion for Specificity: Confronting Inner Experience in Literature and Science},
	year = {2016},
	note = {00000},
	publisher = {Ohio State University Press},
	organization = {Ohio State University Press},
	edition = {1 edition},
	address = {Columbus},
	abstract = {In an analytical yet increasingly intimate conversation, A Passion for Specificity: Confronting Inner Experience in Literature and Science investigates the differences between experience as conveyed in literature and experience as apprehended through scientific method. Can experiences be shared? How much do language and metaphor shape experiential reports? Where is the dividing line between a humanistic and a scientific approach to experience? In a series of exchanges, Marco Caracciolo and Russell Hurlburt demonstrate that those are necessarily personal issues, and they don{\textquoteright}t flinch{\textemdash}they relentlessly examine whether Caracciolo{\textquoteright}s presuppositions distort his understanding of reading experiences and whether Hurlburt{\textquoteright}s attachment to the method he invented causes him to take an overly narrow view of experience. Delving ever more personally, they aim Hurlburt{\textquoteright}s experience sampling methods{\textemdash}beeping people to discover what was in their stream of inner experience at the moment immediately before the beep{\textemdash}at Caracciolo{\textquoteright}s own experiences, an exercise that puts Caracciolo{\textquoteright}s presuppositions to the test and leads him to discover things about experience (his own and literature{\textquoteright}s) that he had thought impossible. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A Passion for Specificity, with its personal revelations, unexpected twists, and confrontational style, reads like an epistolary novel, but it is a serious exploration of ideas at the heart of literature and science. It is a thoughtful attempt at advancing the emerging {\textquotedblleft}cognitive humanities,{\textquotedblright} clarifying a number of core issues in the cross-pollination of literature, psychology, philosophy, and consciousness science.},
	isbn = {978-0-8142-1320-9},
	author = {Caracciolo, Marco and Hurlburt, Russell}
}
