unnatural voices - brian richardson

Theory and Interpretation of Narrative

James Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz, Series Editors

Richardson_book4print.indb 1 10/3/2006 12:39:30 AM

T H E O H I O S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S / C O L U M B U S

Extreme Narration in Modern and Contemporary Fiction

UnnaturalVoices

BRIAN RICHARDSON

Richardson_fm_3rd.indd iiiRichardson_fm_3rd.indd iii 10/4/2006 11:34:21 AM10/4/2006 11:34:21 AM

Copyright © 2006 by The Ohio State University.

all rights reserved.

library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data

Richardson, brian, 1953–

Unnatural voices: extreme narration in modern and contemporary fiction / brian Richardson.

p. cm.—(Theory and interpretation of narrative)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISbN-13: 978–0-8142–1041–3 (cloth : alk. paper)

ISbN-13: 978–0-8142–5157–7 (pbk. : alk. paper)

ISbN-13: 978–0-8142–9119–1 (cd-rom)

1. Fiction—Technique. 2. Narration (Rhetoric) 3. Fiction—20th century—history and criticism. 4.

Fiction—19th century—history and criticism. I. Title. II. Series: Theory and interpretation of narra-

tive series.

PN3383.N35R53 2006

809.3’83—dc22

2006017229

Cover photo and cover design by Jason moore.

Text design and typesetting by Jennifer Shoffey Forsythe.

Type set in Sabon.

Printed by Thomson-Shore, Inc.

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the american National

Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed library materials. aNSI

Z39.48–1992.

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


Extraordinary reader, intimate friend, and great

companion, who many years ago joined me on a beach in mexico

where we first read Joyce and Proust

To my brother, alan


con tents

preface ix acknowledgments xiii

chapter one Introduction: Transgressing Self and voice— Contemporary Fiction and the death of the Narrator 1

chapter two “at First you Feel a bit lost”: The varieties of Second Person Narration 17

chapter three Class and Consciousness: “We” Narration from Conrad to Postcolonial Fiction 37

chapter four I, etcetera: multiperson Narration and the Range of Contemporary Narrators 61

chapter five Three Extreme Forms of Narration and a Note on Postmodern Unreliability 79

chapter six Unnatural Narration in Contemporary drama 106


chapter seven Implied authors, historical authors, and the Transparent Narrator: Toward a New model of the Narrative Transaction 114

chapter eight Conclusion: voicing the Unspeakable 134

appendix: bibliography of “We” Narratives 141 Notes 143Works Cited 151 Index 161

viii / Contents


Narrativetheory,despiteitsemphasisonnar-rationandnarrators,hasnotyetsystematicallyexaminedtheimpres-siverangeofunusualpostmodernandotheravantgardestrategiesofnarration. At the same time, though postmodernism is certainly themostimportantandsuccessfulliterarymovementofthelasthalfcen-tury, it isonethathasoftenprovenresistanttotraditionalnarrativetheory.Thisbookisintendedtorectifytheseunfortunateabsences.Itexploresindepthoneofthemostsignificantaspectsoflatemodern-ist,avantgarde,andpostmodernnarrative—thecreation,fragmenta-tion,and reconstitutionofnarrativevoices—andoffersa theoreticalaccountoftheseunusualandinnovativestrategies.Thisisanempiricalstudy that describes and theorizes the actual practices of significantauthors,insteadofbuildingona priorilinguisticorrhetoricalcatego-ries; such an inductive approach is essential because many extremeformsofnarrationseemtohavebeeninventedpreciselytotransgressfundamental linguistic and rhetorical categories. By drawing on awide range of examples and utilizing the work of postmodern nar-rative theorists, I hope to give these practices the thorough analysistheydeserve.IwillalsotakecaretoidentifysubstantialifunexpectedantecedentsinearliertextsbyauthorsrangingfromGogoltoConradaswellasappositemodernandcontemporaryworksnotusuallycon-sideredfromthisperspective.Inaddition,Iincludesomediscussionof

ix

pre face


x / Preface

theworkofSamuelBeckettineachchapter,thusprovidingasingle(ifknotty)threadthatrunsthroughoutthebook. The first chapter, “Transgressing Self and Voice,” begins witha brief inventory of a number of innovative contemporary uses ofnarrators and narration, including narration by animals, small chil-dren, corpses, machines, and a Minotaur, which move ever furtherawayfromconventionalhumanspeakers.Wewilllookbrieflyatthecareer ofRobbe-Grillet, and followout the varied construction anddeconstructionofthenarratorsofhisfictions.Thechaptergoesontoprovideatheoreticaloverviewofrecentdeploymentsofnarrationanddescribesanewkindof textualdrama thathingeson thedisclosureoftheunexpectedidentityofthenarratorattheendofthework.Thechapteroutlines theexistingrangeof first, second,and thirdpersonforms,includingsuchunusualtypesas“it,”“they,”andpassivevoicenarration.Ithencontrastthesepracticeswithcurrenttheoriesofnar-rative poetics which are unable to fully comprehend the distinctivedifferenceofsuchwork.Whileconcentratingonpostmodernworks,Ialsopayattentiontoearlierandadjacentforms,notingsalientconti-nuitiesandruptures. The second chapter studies second person narration in depth,identifying three major forms of second person fiction, reflectingon its functions and nature, and commenting on the reasons for itsutilizationbyauthorsfromanumberofminorityordisenfranchisedcommunities.Thethirdchaptertracesthedevelopmentoffictionnar-ratedinthefirstpersonpluralfromitsunexpectedoriginsinConrad’sNigger of the ‘Narcissus’toitsmorefamiliarpresentincarnationsandits lessknownpostcolonial avatars.This chapter elucidates theplayofunreliability,theknowledgeofotherminds,andtheconstitutionofacollectivesubject in these texts. Ialsodiscuss“we”narrationasavehicleforrepresentationsofintersubjectivefeminist,agrarian,revo-lutionary, and postcolonial consciousnesses. The fourth chapter sur-veysrecentdevelopmentsinmultipersonnarration,thatis,textsthatemploybothfirstandthirdor,insomecases,first,second,andthirdperson narration. It also discusses indeterminate speakers and logi-callyimpossibleactsofnarration.ItassessesclaimsanddebatesthatstretchfromLukácstofeminismandnewhistoricismconcerningtheideological valenceof specifickindsofnarration.Having completedthreechaptersofanalysisofthemostprominentalternativeformsofnarration,Ithengoontoofferaflexiblemodelthatcansituatealloftheseoddbutincreasinglycommonvoices. Theseanalysesinturnarefollowedbyexplorationsofnewareas


Preface / xi

of experimental narration thathavenotbeen studied from the van-tagepointofacomprehensiveapproachtothetheoryofnarration.Ibegin(inChapterFive)withanexaminationofthreecuriousnarratingfiguresthatexistatthelimitsoftheutterable:ThefirstiswhatIcallthe“interlocutor,”orthevoicethatasksquestionsthattherestofthenarrativethenanswers.Thisfeature,foundinthecatechisticchapter(“Ithaca”)inJoyce’sUlysses,isfairlycommoninpostmodernfiction,andoccupiesanunusualandunstablepositionbetweennarratorandnarratee. The second is the phenomenon of “denarration,” voicesthaterasethetextsthattheyhavebeencreating,suchasfoundinthesentences, “Yesterday it was raining. Yesterday it was not raining.”Thelast,whichIcallthe“permeablenarrator,”slips(oriscollapsed)intoothermindsanddiscoursesandspeakswhatshouldbeimpossibleforittoknow;thisisafavoritestrategyofBeckett,especiallyinthetrilogy,andiscommoninsubsequentFrenchfictionandelsewhere.Iconcludethischapterwithabriefanalysisofdistinctivelypostmoderntypesofunreliability.ChapterSixsurveysunusualnarratorsandanti-mimetickindsofnarration incontemporarydrama, focusingon themoreoutrageouspracticesofStoppard,Duras,DavidHenryHwang,Paula Vogel, and (naturally) Beckett. I focus on plays in which thenatureandidentityofthenarratorconstitutespartofthedramaofthework,whereoffstagevoicesconstructevents,andthecontentsofonemindcontaminatesanother. Theseventhchapterreassessesthequestionoftheimpliedauthorandargues for thecontinuedviabilityof this conceptbyassemblingarangeof texts thathavetwoormorehistoricalauthorsandeitheroneormoreimpliedauthors.Ialsoexamineworksbyasingleauthorthatseemtoemergefromantitheticalaestheticstancesandspeculateontheimplicationsofsuchtextsforatheoryoftheimpliedauthor.Idiscussthelimitsandutilityoftheconcept,andpointtoplaceswheretheauthor’svoiceseemstooverridethatofthenarrator.Booth’scon-ceptof the“career impliedauthor” isreassessedandfoundrelevantfortheanalysisofthelargeroeuvreofwritersthroughoutthehistoryoffiction.Igoontotakeuptheunderstudiedtopicofmultipleimpliedreaders in a work and compare it to the case of multiple impliedauthorsof a single text. I concludewithanewmodelof thenarra-tor–impliedauthor–historicalauthorcontinuum. In the finalchapter, I summarize themainargumentof thebookandgoontodiscussfurtherthemodernistoriginsandhistoricalante-cedentsoftheanti-realistpracticesofsomanycontemporaryworks.Finally,Iendwithadescriptionofageneral“anti-poetics”ofnarrative


xii / Preface

for theseandotheranti-representationalworks tobeconceivedasasupplementand foil to the traditionalpoeticsbasedonmimeticand“natural”narratives.IadvocatethemoveawayfromrigidtypologiesandChinesebox-typemodelsof embedded speakers and towardanalternatefigurationthatstressesthepermeability,instability,andplay-fulmutabilityofthevoicesofnonmimeticfictions.Itishopedthatthisbookwillfillalargegapinnarrativetheory,contributetoscholarshiponSamuelBeckettandonmodernandpostmodernfiction,andhelpprovide enhanced coverage, precision, and conceptual modeling forthetheoryandanalysisofnarratorsandnarration.


This book has benefited greatly from the generouscomments of many colleagues. I am especially thankful to MonikaFludernik, William Nelles, and Porter Abbott, who read and com-mentedonmostorallofthechapters.Deepthanksalsotothosewhoreadandcommentedonindividualsectionsorchapters:RobertFord,JenniferRiddleHarding,EmmaKafalenos,R.B.Kershner,andGeraldPrince.Asalways, SangeetaRayhelpedmegreatly at several levels,scholarly,professional,andpersonal.Finally,particularthanksgotoJimPhelanandPeterRabinowitz,whodeserveaspecialnarratologicaltermsuchasSuperreader for theirhardwork,generousadvice,andbrilliantediting. EarlierversionsofChaptersTwo,Four,andSixappearedinGenre24(1991)309–30;Style28(1994)312–28;andNew Literary History28(2001)681–94.Ithankthesejournalsforpermissiontoreproducethismaterial.

xiii

acknowl edgments


In1954,WolfgangKayserwarnedthatifwelosesightofthefactthatthenarratoris“someone”who“tellsastory,”thenovelisdead:“Thedeathofthenarratoristhedeathofthenovel”(34).1Asitwouldturnout,Kaysercouldnothavebeenmorewrong.Narrative literaturewasabouttoexplodewithawiderangeofpost-anthropomorphicnarratorswhilephilosophy(soontobefol-lowed by critical theory) was beginning its half-century assault onhumanism.Thesignificanceofthisshiftshouldnotbeminimized—bymovingbeyondmerelyhumannarrators, textsbegin to tamperwithordestroyoutrightthe“mimeticcontract”thathadgovernedconven-tionalfictionforcenturies:nomorecanoneassumethatafirstpersonnarratorwouldresembleanormalhumanbeing,withallitsabilitiesandlimitations(excepting,ofcourse,anever-remarked-uponabilitytoproduceahighlynarratablestorythatreadsjustlikeanovel). Ifwe lookbackonthebroadest trajectoriesof thehistoryof theuseofthenarratorinfictionitwillbecomeapparentthatsuchamovewasprobablyinevitable.Twomainfeaturesstandoutinthedevelop-ment of fictional technique since Defoe: the exploration of subjec-tivity (beginning with Sterne’s play with unexpected associations ofideasandcontinuingwithJaneAusten’sdevelopmentoffreeindirectdiscourse);theotheristheriseoftheunreliablenarrator,whichhadbeenpresentinepistolaryfictionandgainednewprominencebythetimeDostoevsky’s“Notes from theUnderground” (1864)appeared.

1

Introduction

TRaNSgRESSINg SElF aNd vOICE— CONTEmPORaRy FICTION aNdThE dEaTh OF ThE NaRRaTOR

chapter one


2 / Chapter One

In addition, narrative fragmentation and unexpected reconstruc-tions, begun by Sterne in Tristram Shandy (1767), were redeployedbyanumberofRomanticauthorsincludingByron(Don Juan,1824),Heine(Buch le Grand,1827),Pushkin(Evgeny Onegin,1833),andinnumerousworksofJeanPaul. Eachofthesedevelopmentssuggestsfurtherstepsalongthesamepath: one goes from unreliable narrators to incompetent ones todelusional and then completely insane storytellers. One starts withflawednarration,goesontomorefragmentedforms,andendswiththesemi-coherentandutterlyopaque.Therepresentedconsciousnessis increasingly abnormal: we move from Woolf’s Septimus Smith toFaulkner’sBenjy toBeckett’sMolloy toNabokov’sCharlesKinbote.Thefirstpersonnarratorwithafullnameandclearidentityinearlierfictionbecomesonewho impliespseudonymitybystating,“CallmeIshmael”;thenextmoveistheanonymousnarratorofthe“Cyclops”episodeofUlysses (1922)followedbytheunnamedthoughintimatenarrator of Invisible Man (1953) who, it might be noted, mentionsthatTheBrotherhoodhadhimchangehisnamebutneverinformsusofeithertheoldorthenewname.InBeckett’sThe Unnamable(1953),there is simplyadisembodiedvoice thatdoesnothaveaname; thismovement culminates in the multiple dubious narrators collapsedtogetherinthemoreextremenouveaux romans. Withvirtuallyall earlier fictionhavingbeenwritten ineither thefirstorthirdperson,howcouldexperimentalwritersfailtomoveonto the “we” form that combines them, or the “you” that confusesthem, and then go on to explore the possibilities of narration fromthe perspective of “they,” “one,” a pronounless passive voice, andnew,inventedpronounsuntilonereachestheanthologyofpronomi-nal forms thatmakeupMauriceRoche’sCompact (1966)? Inwhatfollows,Iwillbeginbyindicatingthelargerangeoftheunusualnar-ratorsandconsciousnessesofcontemporaryfiction,goontoaddressparticularquestionsofnarrativetheoryposedbytheseoddwords,anddiscuss unusual pronominal forms and comment on their functions,therebypreparingthewayfortheextendedaccountsofsecond,firstpersonplural,andmultipersonnarration thatwill takeup the threechaptersthatfollow.FinallyIwillattempttocategorizesomepromi-nenttypesofnon-andanti-mimeticnarration.

§


Introduction: Transgressing Self and voice / 3

The kinds of posthuman narrators that have appeared in the lastseveral decades are protean. In addition to the demented narratorsofBeckettorthemutestorytellersinCalvino’sThe Castle of Crossed Destinies (1969),wefind, tonoteonlysomeof themostprominentcases,volublecorpses(Beckett’s“TheCalmative,”1946),impossiblyeloquentchildren(inJohnHawkes’Virginie: Her Two Lives,1981),aghostwhosenarrativeisunreliableinKurosawa’sRashomon(1951),sophisticatedstorytellinganimals(ahorseinJohnHawkes’Sweet Wil-liam,1993),theCretanMinotaurinBorges’s“TheHouseofAsturion”(1949),adisembodiedvoicethatnarratescompulsively(Beckett’sThe Unnamable),amindthatcanperceivetheunspokenthoughtsofmanyothers(Rushdie’sSaleemSinai,1981),atelevisionsetthatappearstodisplaytheconfusedmemoriesoftheprotagonist(Grass’Local Anaes-thetic,1969),acyberneticdevicethatallowsonepersontoexperiencevirtually the perceptions of another (Gibson’s Neuromancer, 1984),and even storytelling machines (in Stanisław Lem’s The Cyberiad,1967). In a trajectory that will frequently appear in the pages thatfollow,wewillnotehowreflectionona typicallypostmodernprac-ticecanstimulate literaryhistorical reflections thatyieldunexpectedantecedents:narrationfromtheothersideofthegraveisfoundatleastasfarbackasMachadodeAssis’The Posthumous Memoirs of Brás Cubas(1881),whilebestialnarratorsandfocalizers(whosefunctionisnotmerelyallegorical)stretchbacktoTolstoy’sstory“Kholstomer”(1886)aswellasVirginiaWoolf’sliteralsnail’s-eye-viewoftheeventsin“KewGardens”(1919).2Itshouldbereadilyapparentthatamodelcenteredonstorytellingsituationsinreallifecannotbegintodojusticetothesenarratorswhobecomeevermoreextravagantlyanti-realisticeverydecade.

§

Playwith the realor imaginedgenderof thenarratorhasalsobeena staple of contemporary fiction, especially gender impersonation,transformation, andobfuscation, and this hasproduced its shareofcritical puzzlement. “Stream of consciousness” writing, or “autono-mousinteriormonologue,”asDorritCohnmorepreciselytermsit,hasbeenunabletoresistimpersonatingthemindoftheothergendersincetheoriginof thispractice. Iamreferringnotonly toMollyBloom’smonologuebuttoSchnitzler’searlypsychonarration,the1924novella,


4 / Chapter One

“Fräulein Else.” Since these texts appeared, numerous authors haveattempted such sustained transgendered representations, includingCoetzee’sFoe(1986),whichsimultaneouslyprovidesawoman’snar-ration (which isdoomed tobe suppressed) and resolutely refuses tonarrateorotherwisespeakfortheAfricancharacter,Friday.Likewise,the assiduous, realistic, and decidedly male first person narrator ofJulian Barnes’ 1984 novel, Flaubert’s Parrot, abruptly gives way intheeleventhchaptertotheobviouslyfictivefirstpersonnarrationofFlaubert’slover,LouiseColet,whoofferstoprovidetheotherhalfofthe story.Other,more radical playwith gender includes the strangefirstpersonnarrationofEvelyn,themanwhowillbemade(againsthiswill) intoabiologicalwoman inAngelaCarter’sThe Passion of New Eve(1977),andwhoseconsciousnessandnarrationwillbetrans-formedascompletelyashis/herbodyis. Thestrategythatcausesthemostconsternationamongconvention-alreaders,however,istherefusaltoidentifythegenderofthenarrator,especiallywhenthenarratorisinvolvedinsexualacts.ThissituationisprovocativelyforegroundedinJeanetteWinterson’sWritten on the Body(1992).AsSusanS.Lanserobservesinherdiscussionofsex,gen-der,andnarration,“theunnamedautodiegeticnarratorof[thisbook]isneveridentifiedasmaleorfemale”;sincetheplotrevolvesaroundthenarrator’sloveofamarriedwoman(and,beforethatrelationshiphasbegun,thenarratorhassexualrelationshipswithbothmaleandfemalecharacters),“thatsilenceandtheextenttowhichitdestabilizesboth textualityandsexualitydrive thisnovelat leastasmuchas itssurfaceplot” (“Queering”250).This situation also appears in JuneArnold’sThe cook and the carpenter: a novel by the carpenter (1973),wherethecharactersarereferredtoexclusivelybyaninvented,gender-lesspronoun,“na.”Since thecookand thecarpenter formaunion,asimilardynamicofreceptiondevelopsuntilthegenderofthechar-actersisrevealedattheendofthetext.Needlesstosay,theseworksappeartorefutethespeculationofafewnarratologistslikeMiekeBal(122)whoarguethatsincenarratorsareverbalconstructsratherthanactual people, they are not gendered and therefore should properlybetermed“it”ratherthan“he”or“she.”Afterall,beingafictionalconstruct does not mean being ungendered: many fictional entitiesfromunicornstodivinebeingstoimpliedauthorsarequitedefinitivelygendered.3

Another seminal transformation that has occurred involves therelationsbetweenauthor andnarrator. Since earlymodernist fiction(if not before), it has been crucial to differentiate carefully between



theauthorandthenarratorofawork,andnevertoassumeuncriti-callythatthespeakerofthetextrepresentstheideasofitsauthor.Theconceptof theunreliablenarrator,a foundationalmodernist typeofnarrator,presupposessuchacleardivision.“Marcel”inIn Search of Lost TimeisnotMarcelProust,andStephenDedalus,whenhewritesinthefirstpersonattheendofPortrait of the Artist as a Young Man,isnotidenticalwithJamesJoyce.Thisdistinction,whichfurthermorehelpedgiverisetotheconceptoftheimpliedauthor,isoftenerodedorassaultedbymanypostmodernauthors,whocannotresistinterpo-latingcharacterswhobeartheirownnamesandlifehistoryintothefictionalworldtheyhavecreated.Inmanycases,theseincursionsarelargelyinnocuousontologically;theydifferlittlefromChaucer’sdepic-tionofabadstorytellernamedChaucerin“TheTaleofSirTophas.”Theyare,thatis,fictionalcharactersthatresembletheirauthorsjustasacharactercalledNapoleonorRichardNixoninafictionaltextmay(ormaynot)resemblethehistoricaloriginalbutisinthefinalanalysismerely a fictional construct. Other such incarnations, however, aremuchmoretransgressiveofthisboundary.SomeofNabokov’sstories,suchas“FirstLove,”werepublishedbothasfictionandasautobiog-raphy.TheworkofW.G.Sebaldglidesinandoutofthecategoriesofdocumentary prose, essayistic reflection, and narrative fiction. TheauthorofthenonfictionalprefaceofNabokov’sBend Sinisterassertsheisthegoverningintelligenceofthetextthatisdimlyperceivedbyhisprotagonist.KurtVonnegutincorporateshispersonaltestimonyoftheAlliedfirebombingofDresdenintoanantiwarnovel,andaffirmsthehistoricalaccuracyofhisdescriptionsandtheidentityofthecharacterVonnegutandtheauthor:“Thatwasme.Thatwastheauthorofthisbook”(125).4

Still more relevant to this study are the many odd, unusual, orimpossiblespeakersfoundincontemporaryworks.Thesefiguresarealsomuchmorechallenging to traditionalnarrative theory,which istypically based on the mimesis of actual speech situations. If a nar-rative is, as commonly averred, someone relating a set of events tosomeoneelse, then this entirewayof lookingatnarrativehas tobereconsidered in the light of the numerous ways innovative authorsproblematizeeachtermofthisformula,especiallythefirstone.Sum-mingupnearlyallofthetheorizingon“pointofview”sincethetimeofHenryJamesandVictorShklovsky,GérardGenettewritesthatthenovelistmustchoosebetweentwonarrativepostures,either“tohavethestorytoldbyoneofits‘characters,’ortohaveittoldbyanarratoroutsidethestory”(Narrative244).Itis,however,preciselythischoice


6 / Chapter One

that isrejectedbysomanycontemporaryauthors.Aswewillsee insomedetailinthenextchapter,secondpersonproseisperhapsexem-plaryinthisrespect;the“you”invokedwillatdifferentpointsseemtobeoneofthecharacters;atothersanarratoroutsidethestory; itmayfurthermoreseemtorefertoanarrateeortheactualreaderwhoholdsthebook.Wefindthisblurringofpersoncunninglyrepresentedinoneofthe“you”passagesinFuentes’La Muerta de Artemio Cruz:“CuandoCatalinapegueeloídoa lapuertaquelosseparayesuchetusmovimentos;cuandotú,delotroladodelapuerta,temuevassinsaberqueerasescuchado,sinsaberalguíenvivependientedelosrui-dosylossilenciosdetuvidadetrásdelapuerta,¿quiénviviráenesaseparacíon?”(1115). (“WhenCatalinaputsherear to thedoor thatseparates her from you and listens to your movements; when you,on theother sideof thedoor,movewithoutknowing that someonehangsuponthesoundsandsilencesofyourlife:whowillliveinthatseparation?”[30]).Itispreciselythespacebetweentheperceiverandthe perceived over which the “you” narration hovers. Revealingly,Genettegoeson toexpresshis consternationat thenew fiction that“does not hesitate to establish between narrator and character(s) avariableorfloatingrelationship,apronominalvertigointunewithafreerlogicandamorecomplex‘personality’”(246).Itispreciselythis“logic”thatneedstobeinvestigated,andthis“vertigo”thatneedstobesavored. Wemightthenbeginbyemphasizingthatmuchrecentfictionrejectsa mimetic model. Thus, a conventional work likeRoxana or Great Expectations ismodeledonthenonfictionalgenreof thememoirorautobiography. Its narrator can only know what an autobiographercanknow,andmustremainignorantofothermindsaswellasoffactsthats/hehasnotlearned(suchasthecontentsofprivatemeetingsbydiscreetindividuals).Thisiswhy,forexample,DorritCohn,followingPhilippeLejeune,statesthatfirstpersonworksoffictioncanbedif-ferentiatedfromautobiographiesonlybyexplicit,usuallyparatextualindicationsoffictionalityor if thenameofthenarratordiffersfromthatoftheauthor(Distinction58–60).5

Likewise,atraditional,mimeticthirdpersonfictionwilltypicallyfollowthebasicconventionsofbiographyorthehistoryofafamily,withtheexceptionthatthenarratorisabletoknowwhatgoesoninthemindsofoneormorecharacters.6Afirstpersonnarratorcannotknowwhatisinthemindsofothers,andathirdpersonnarratormayperformthis,andafewothersuchacts,butmaynotstraybeyondtheestablishedconventionsofdepictingsuchperceptions:thethoughtof



onecharactermaynotbelodgedwithinthemindofanotherwithoutany intervening plausible explanation. These rules, however, havealways been more frail and arbitrary than narrative theorists haveusuallywantedtoacknowledge.NikolaiGogolinhis1842story,“TheOvercoat,”drawsattentiontobothoftheseconventions.Ashispro-tagonistisstrollinginthestreetsofSt.Petersburgatnightinhisnewovercoat,heseesasalaciousfigurineinashopwindowandsmiles.Thenarratorasksafewrhetoricalquestionsconcerningthecauseofthissmile,beforegoingontoaverthatthere isnocreepingintoaman’ssouland findingoutwhathe thinks.Throughout the text,however,he has been doing just that, revealing private thoughts, disclosingscenesthatwereunobserved,andgenerallyassumingtheprerogativesofathirdpersonnarrator—evenashecomplainsthathismemoryisgrowingdimandhecannotrecallallthedetailsoftheeventshenar-rates.Gogol isobviouslymockingtheseconventionsandrefusingtobeboundbythem;heisclearlytellinghisreaderthatwhenitcomestonarration,hecandowhateverhepleases—asentimentmanycurrentnovelistsobviouslyshare.Eventhehighmodernistswhoperfectedtheverisimilarpresentationofanindividualconsciousnesscouldnotresistviolatingthesebasicrules.Proust’sMarcelknowswhattranspires inSwann’smindaswellasany thirdpersonnarratorcould,andJoycecouldnotresistplantingafewstrayprivatethoughtsofoneindividualwithin the consciousness of an unwitting other in the later parts ofUlysses(seePeake268–69). WecangetasenseofsomeofthesedevelopmentsinthepracticeofnarrationandtherepresentationofconsciousnessbyglancingbrieflyatthewayAlainRobbe-Grillettreatstheserelatedissuesatdifferentpoints inhis career.His first stories seemtobeunconnected,hyper-objective acts of pure description; each in fact plays with differentfacetsofperception.“IntheCorridorsoftheMetro”(1959)istypicalinthisregardandrepresentsadistillationofthetechniquesofmanyoftheearlyshorttexts,beginningwith“ThreeReflectedVisions”(1954):“Corridors”canbereadasaseriesofinconsequentialdescriptionsandunrelatedeventsor,ifasingleperceivingsubjectispostulated,wehavecontinuousnarrativeprogressionasseenthroughtheeyesofamobilethoughunmentionedfocalizer.“TheWayBack”(1954)isabriefstorythatissignificantforitsexplorationofthepossibilitiesof“we”narra-tion.InLe Voyeur,Robbe-Grillet’ssecondpublishednovel(1955),theratherordinarythoughtsofacertainMathiasaresetforthminutebyminuteforathirdofthebook.Ablankpageinthetextthenappears.Afterwards,we learn that a terrible crimehasbeen committed, and


8 / Chapter One

Matthiasseeksdesperatelytofillthevoidrepresentedbythosemissingminutes.ItisuptothereadertofillintheliterallyunspeakablecrimethatMathiashasclearlycommitted, therebybecomingthe“voyeur”ofthetitle. Inhisnextnovel,La Jalousie(1957),Robbe-Grilletemployswhathas been termed the je-néant or absent-I narrator. As Dorrit Cohnpointsout,“the changinganglesof visionand spatialdistances, theobsessive repetitions of language and scene, insistently prompt thereadertopostulateahumaneye(and‘I’)behindthevoice—notjustacameraeye”(Transparent207)All theeventsofthistextare indeedperceivedthroughtheeyesofafigurewhoisnevernamedorreferredto,andwhoseexistencemustbededucedfromobscurehintshiddenwithinthedescriptions, includingthosenotedbyCohn.Wehave,asitwere,individualizedperceptionwithoutanidentifiedperceiver.Theinferredperceiver,thejealoushusband,iscertainlythesolefocalizerofthetext,andmayormaynotbeitsnarrator,sinceitisnotcertainthatheisresponsibleforthewordsofthebook.Herewehaveinstead,asin“InTheCorridorsoftheMetro,”amostunusualfigurethatwemightnamethe“hiddenfocalizer”;Robbe-Grillet’sworksfromthisperiodsimultaneouslyflirtwithanarchobjectivismthatgoesfarbeyondthe“cameraeye”techniqueofaDosPassosorIsherwoodandalsopres-ent an unusual, extreme subjectivity with a minimum of mediation.Theworkcanbeviewed,thatis,astheepitomeofeithernarrationalobjectivityorsubjectivity. In Dans le labyrinthe (1959), Robbe-Grillet ties up a confusingseriesofself-negatingnarrativestrandsbyabruptlyannouncingthataminorcharacterinthestory,thedoctor,isinfactitsnarrator;thisisverypossiblyaparodyofasimilarstratagemthathadjustbeenenact-edbyCamus(whichIwillshortlydiscuss).ThenarratorofLa Maison de rendez-vous(1965)is,likeeveryotherfigureinthetext,somethingofacardboardfigurethatimperfectlyrepresentsahumanbeing.Hisnarrationisfilledwithcontradictions,repetitions,andvariationsthat,as a character in the world he depicts, he cannot begin to explain.Finally, in the flagrantlyandself-consciouslycontradictorynarrativethatmakes up Projet pour une révolution à New York (1970), twomen are seen in the bushes bordering a park. One character asks athirteen-year-oldwhotheyare;thegirlresponds:“That’seasy:oneisBen-Said,theotheristhenarrator”(57).Wehavecometotheendofatrajectory;thenarratornowisonlyanemptynametobeparodied.

§



Thethirdpersonisnotwhatitusedtobe.RolandBarthes’denuncia-tionofit,despitehisplayfullyextremelanguage,isfairlyrepresentativeofitsfallfromfavoramongmodernistandpostmodernwritersaswellastheoristswritingafterLubbockandSartre.Barthes(Barthes)states:“‘he’isnasty:itisthenastiestwordinthelanguage:thepronounofthenon-person,itnullifiesandmortifiesitsreferent;...IfIsay‘he’ofsomeone,Ialwayshaveinmindasortofmurderbylanguage”(171).Other theorists like Audrey Jaffe, William Nelles (“Omnisicence”),andJonathanCullerhaverecentlyqualifiedordebatedthetraditionalnotionofomniscience;asCullerstates,“thefundamentalpointisthatsince we do not know whether there is a God and what she mightknow, divine omniscience is not a model that helps us think aboutauthors or about literary narration” (23). In another sphere, DorritCohn (Distinction 132–49) andMargotNorris (216–36) showhowthethirdpersonnarratorsofThomasMannandJamesJoycedisplayademonstrableandidiosyncraticsubjectivitythatoftenmakesthemlessthan fully reliable. Indeed, Joyce’s third person narrations regularlyincarnatewhatHughKennerhascalled“theUncleCharlesprinciple,”inwhichthediscourseofthenarratorisinfiltratedbylanguagetypicalofthecharacterbeingdescribed,aswemayobserveintheopeningsen-tenceof“TheDead”:“Lily,thecaretaker’sdaughter,wasliterallyrunoffherfeet”;thewordsshemightusetodescribeherselfherefindtheirwayintothepenofthenarrator.7GordonCollier likewiseexamines“subjectivized third person narration” in Patrick White’s The Solid Mandala,introducingacriticaltermthatweshouldprobablyexpecttoseemorewidelyusedinstudiestocome. Theseexamplesdonotbegintoexhaustthemanypossibilitiesthatrecent writers have brought into being. Hypertext narrators furtherproblematizetheideaofomniscienceandevenofthirdpersonnarra-tionbycreatinga seriesofnarrativepossibilities thata readermustthen convert into a single story, one which, by definition, cannothavebeenfullyknowninadvanceofitsreading.And,aswewillseeina laterchapter,Beckettandothersdemonstratehowthirdpersonnarratorscanerasethenarrativeworldtheyhavejustcreated.Inhisessay,“ToWrite:AnIntransitiveVerb?,”RolandBarthesresurrectedthearchaiclinguisticformof“themiddlevoice,”whichindicatesthespeakingsubjectisaffectedbytheactiondepictedbytheverb,torep-resentthepracticeofthemodernscripteur,andBrianMacaskill(1994)andMarioOrtiz-Robles(2004)haveshownhowthisconceptcanbeemployed in theanalysisof specificnarratives.Another recent theo-retical essay shouldbementionedhere,HenrikNielsen’s analysis of


10 / Chapter One

theimpersonalvoiceinfirstpersonfiction,whicharguescompellinglythat in literary fiction, “one cannot be certain that it is the personreferredtoas‘I’whospeaksornarrates,andtherefore...weneedtopositanimpersonalvoiceofthenarrative”(133).Ifsometheoristsaredemonstratingthesubjectivityofmuchthirdpersonfiction,othersarecomplicatingournotionoffirstpersonnarration. And what of the opposition itself? The distinction Genette findsso foundational (and which Stanzel and others cover by referringto fundamental first and third person narrative standpoints) is onewhichmanyrecentwriterscannotresistinverting.Sincetheseplayfuljoustingswiththisconventiondeservetobebetterknown,Iwilltakeacoupleofpagestodelineatesomeofthemoreinterestingtransgres-sions.AttheendofCamus’La Peste(1947),asDidierHusson(1991)hasnoted,thenarratorwhohasguidedusthroughthenovelrevealshimselftobetheprincipalcharacter,Dr.Rieux;fortheentiretyofthenovelhehasdisguisedhisidentityandspokenofhimselfinthethirdperson. Robbe-Grillet’s more radical appropriation of this move inDans le labyrinthe,whichchangesthenovelfromaheterodiegetictoahomodiegeticone,callsintoquestiontherealsignificanceofarela-tionthatcanbealteredsoeasily.Inotherworksthatutilizethisdevicefor different purposes, we might even state that part of the plot isthedeterminationofthetrueidentityofthenarrator’srelationtothediscourse. In“TheShapeof theSword”(1944),Borges’protagonistrecounts,inthethirdperson,thestoryofacowardlytraitor;onlybytheendof the taledowerealize that thenarratorhasbeendescrib-inghimselfallalong.Genette,wemaynoteinpassing,discussesthisexample in Narrative Discourse (243–47) only to conclude, ratherstrangely,that“theBorgesianfantastic,inthisrespectemblematicofawholemodernliterature,doesnotacceptperson”(247).Thisstate-mentisclearlyfalse;theplotofthestoryanditsreceptionispreciselyabout the consequences of person in narration. We may term thisspecificpracticea“pseudo–thirdperson”narrative,andidentifyadra-maticanalogueinBeckett’sappropriatelytitledshortplay,“NotI,”inwhichamonologistappearstobespeakingaboutanotherbutisinfactunwittinglyreferringtoscenes fromherownlife.Thesamestrategyalsoappearsinotherworksofthesetwoauthors,aswewillsee;fornowwemaysimplypointtoBeckett’sCompany,atextthatconstitutesa sustained, self-conscious exploration of pronominal positions, asthealternationbetweena“you”anda“he”isrevealedintheendtobeaspuriousdistinction,afutileattemptbyanisolatedindividualtoengendercompany.8



Anothertextthatcontainsabruptrevelationsorcomplicationsoftheactualgenderedidentityofthenarrator isCalvino’sThe Nonex-istent Knight (1959).At thebeginning, it isa third-personnarrativeof thepostmodern adventuresof several ofCharlemagne’s paladins,includingRaimbaut’spursuitoftheamazonianwarrior,Bradamante.Somethirtypagesintothenovella,however,theauthorofthenarra-tivemakesherpresenceknownand revealsherself tobeanun inaconventwhoistryingtoimaginetheforeignscenessherecounts.Atthe endof the text she again employs the first person anddisclosesthatsheisinfacttheveryBradamanteshehadbeendescribinginthethirdperson—andastheobjectofamalequest.Thestrategyofnarra-tionthustendstonegatetheideologicalvalenceimplicitinthestory’steleology, that of the (con)quest of the female. Once again, a thirdperson text isabruptly transformed intoamore subjectivenarrativeperspective.Thisinnovationinnarrationismuchmorewidespreadinpracticethanisgenerallyacknowledged.NovelsbyAnthonyPowell(A Dance to the Music of Time,1975),DorisLessing’s1962novel,The Golden Notebook(asinterpretedbyBethBoehm),MargaretDrabble(The Waterall,1969),MargaretAtwood(The Blind Assassin,2000),and, most flagrantly, Ian McEwan (Atonement, 2001) also includethistransformation.9AndasSuzanneKeenexplains,inIrisMurdoch’sThe Philosopher’s Pupil(1983),thenarratorfirstappearstobeatra-ditionalthirdpersonteller,butisrevealedintheendtobe“involvedintheactionwiththecharactersofthestoryworld.Evidently,‘N’hasinterviewedalltheparticipantsinordertogainthecopiousevidenceoftheirthoughts,feelings,andmotivationsthatwouldusuallybeplau-sibleonlyas funneled throughan external authorialnarrator” (41).Murdoch,thatis,demonstrateshowafirstpersonnarratormightpos-sibly,withintheboundsofrealism,writeaccuratelyasathirdpersonteller seeminglyprivy to the thoughtsofothers.Theothernarratorstendtoberatherlessscrupulousconcerningthesourcesoftheirappar-entknowledgeofotherminds;inthecaseofMcEwanthisproducesakindofpseudo-focalizationinwhichthethoughtsofseveralindividu-alsarepresentedasifbyanomniscientthirdpersonnarrator,butitisonewhoturnsouttobemerelyacharacterwhousesherimaginationtoattempttointuittheprobableorpossiblethoughtsoftheothers.10

Thesamemovecanbemadewiththesecondperson.InJoyceCarolOates’sstory“You”(1970),wearepresentedwithwhatIwouldcallapseudo-secondpersonnarrative.The first thirdof the story seemstobeastraightforwardexampleofwhat Iwill call standardsecondpersonnarration, inwhich the protagonist, focalizer, and governing


12 / Chapter One

consciousnessof the text is a single figuredesignatedby the secondperson pronoun. Such an assumption is strengthened by narrationthatseemstodepictthestreamofthoughtsofthetitularcharacter:“Itstrikesyouthatthisisanimportantscene,anemotionalscene.Peoplearewatchingyouanxiously.Youmightbeinaplay.Notoneofthosecrappytelevisionplays . . .” (365).A littlemore thana thirdof thewayintothestory,however,afirstpersonnarratoremerges;itturnsoutthatthetale’snarratoristheneglectedteenagedaughter,andthe“you”refersentirelytothedaughter’simaginativeconstructionoftheprobableevents,physicalandmental,ofhermother’slife.Onceagain,theplotofthenarrativeandthepoignancyoftheeventsturnontherevelationofthenarrator’sactualidentity,asthetext’splaywiththeconventionsofnarrationanditsreceptionisdisclosed. Alloftheseexamplesfollowthesamelogic:thenatureandidentityofthenarratorbecomesitselfaminiaturedramaasafamiliarnarrat-ingsituationisestablishedthroughoutthetextonlytobeutterlytrans-formedattheend.Theheterodiegeticnarratoroutsidethestoryturnsout to have been in there all along; the seemingly daring narrative“you”isinsteadamoreconventionalapostrophe,thestoryofanotheris revealed to be the story of oneself. The conventional practice isdeployeduntilitisturnedinsideout,revealingtheartificialityofaper-spective,whetherdesignated“thirdperson”or“heterodiegetic,”thatcanbesoeasilyinverted.Anditwillbenotedthatthemoveisalwaysawayfromtraditionalobjectivityandomniscience,fromthethirdper-sontothefirst.11ThefoundationthatGenetteandotherswouldusetogroundtheirmodelsofnarrativeisfarmoretenuousthanusuallyimagined,andonlylastsuntilthewhimoftheauthorintervenes.AsMichelButorhasclarifiedinoneofhistheoreticalessays,“inthenovel[the]distinctionbetweenthe threegrammaticalpersons ismuch lessrigorousthanitcanbeineverydaylife;theyarelinkedtoeachother”(Inventory 62).12 Or, to draw on a self-reflexive statement on thissubjectbyoneofBeckett’sspeakersinStories and Texts for Nothing thatarticulatesthefluidity(and,perhaps,thepossiblearbitrariness)ofsuchdifferentiations:“itwonders, thatvoicewhich is silence,or it’sme,there’snotelling,it’sallthesamedream,thesamesilence,itandme,itandhim,himandme,andallourtrain,andalltheirs,andalltheirs”(139). In contemporary fiction, one narration is collapsed into another,and one consciousness bleeds into a second one, or a foreign textinscribes itself on a mind. These anti-mimetic interpenetrations cantakenumerousforms,suchastheextremelyoddthirdpersonnarra-



tion of much of Beckett’s Watt (1953) which is abruptly “claimed”by a first person narrator, Sam, halfway through the book—an actwhichunmoorsbothnarrativeperspectivessinceacharacternarratorshouldnothavebeenabletoproducethetextwehavebeenreadinguptothepointofhisadmissionofauthorship.Anextreme,metalepticformofthisconflationappearsinBorges’story“TheCircularRuins”(1940),whichculminatesintheprotagonist’srealizationthatheandhisthoughtsareanillusion,thatsomeoneelseisdreaminghim.Stillothertypesofcontaminatedsubjectivitieswillbenotedinthedescrip-tionof“conflatednarrators”below. Narratorscandiverge fromnormalhumanspeakers instillmoreways. The narrator at the beginning of Caryl Phillips’ Crossing the River,anovelcomposedoffournovellasseparatedintimeandspace,openswithaprefacenarratedbyonewhostates:“Fortwohundredyears Ihave listened to themany-tonguedchorus.Andoccasionally,amongthesundryrestlessvoices,Ihavediscoveredthoseofmyownchildren” (1). The narrative further contains interpolations of onespeaker’s thoughts within the mind of another, temporally distantspeaker,plantedtherenotbyanynaturalisticknowledgeorpreternat-uraltelepathy,butsimplybyadaringauctorialfiat.Thisgesturebothconveysthesenseofatraditionaltributetotheancestorsandexploresthe realm of a posthuman sensibility which, according to KatherynHayles,“privilegesinformationalpatternovermaterialinstantiation”(2);itcanserveasaforetasteofthekindsofextremeactsofnarrationIwillcoverinthisbook. Uptothispoint, Ihavetriedto identifythemost interestingandstrikingdeploymentsofvoice,perspective,andnarrationoverthepastfiftyyears.Thesearenot randomchanges;wecan in factobserveanumber of distinct yet complementary trajectories these innovationshavetaken.Thereisageneralmoveawayfromwhatwasthoughttobe “omniscient” third person narration to limited third person nar-rationtoevermoreunreliablefirstpersonnarratorstonewexplora-tionsof“you,”“we,”andmixedforms.Thereisasimilarmovementfrom the psychological novel to more impressionistic renderings ofconsciousnesstothedissolutionofconsciousnessintotextuality,anda corresponding move from human-like narrators to quasi-human,non-human,andanti-humanspeakers,asthefigureofthenarratorasarecognizablehumanbeingrecedesintoanevergreatereclipse.Thebasiccategoriesoffirstandthirdpersonnarrationorhomo-andhet-erodiegesis, themselves based on foundational linguistic oppositionsarticulatedbyBenveniste,are repeatedlyproblematizedandviolated


14 / Chapter One

byexperimentalwriters.Forthemostpartneitherofthemajortheo-reticalapproachescanbegintocomprehendthisplethoraofnewworkforthesimplereasonthatitrejectsthetypeofmimeticrepresentationthatboththeoriespresuppose. Therestofthisbookisintendedtoprovidebroadanalyses,workingmodels,andtheoreticalconceptualizationsofthisneglectedtwentieth-century traditionof non- and anti-mimetic fiction. In the remainingparagraphs of this chapter, I will describe the range of pronominalperspectives that have been employed in narration in recent years,andthengoontodevoteachaptereachtothethreemostimportantforms: second person, first person plural, and multiperson modes.13This analysis will conclude with a flexible model of the varieties ofcontemporarynarrationattheendofthefourthchapter.Thesecondpartofthebookwillgoontoexploreanumberofothersalientandevenmore transgressive techniques typical of postmodernismbeforesettingforthaworkablemodelofthenarrativetransactioncapaciousenoughtoincludetheseunrulypractices. Wemaybeginwiththetwomostwidespread,important,andper-hapsunnervingnarrational stances: the“you”and the“we” forms.Amongthevirtuesofthesepronominalstancesistheproteanrangeofeach:“you”isparticularlydevious,sinceitcanrefertotheprotago-nist,thenarrator,thenarratee,orthereader;authorsusingthisformregularly play on this ambiguity as well as on its multiple possiblemeanings.Italsocanbeusedinthreedifferentways:initsstandardform,itdesignatesaprotagonist,oscillatingbetweenthefunctionsofthe first and the thirdperson. It can also approximate theordinaryfunctionof thepronoun“one” in its“recipe” function (e.g.,“Beginbymeetinghiminaclass,abar,arummagesale”);finally,thispro-nominalformcanalsorefertothereaderholdingthebook.“We”isfluid inadifferentway; itcangroworshrinktoaccommodateverydifferentsizedgroupsandcaneitherincludeorexcludethereader.Ittoo, though inamore subtlemanner,also typically rejects thebasicdyadoffirstandthirdperson. Otherformsareconsiderablylesscommonbutequallyinteresting.InL’Opoponax(1964),MoniqueWittighaswrittenanovelfromtheperspectiveof“one”(on);ironically,itwastranslatedintoEnglishasa“you”narration(tothehorroroftheauthor),asifitwasfeltthatthe“one”narrationwouldbetooalienating.TheGermanequivalent,man, isdominant inmanysuccessiveparagraphsnear thebeginningofAdalbertStifter’s“Bergkristall”(1845);Fluderniknotesthattherearethreenovelsthatextensivelyemploythismode,thefirstofwhich



is JosephRoth’sRadetzkymarsch (1932).14Thirdperson formshavealso seen some interesting variations. Joseph Conrad and MauriceRoche, as we will see below, have sections of their works writteninapassivevoice thatdissolves theagencyof individual characters.Therearebrief“it”passages,asFludernikhasnoted,inChristopherIsherwood’sA Single Man and in JohnFowles’Mantissa; thesealsoappearintheworkofBeckett.Otherworksdepictacollectivesubjectlargelyorentirelydesignatedbythepronoun“they”:D.H.Lawrence’sstory“Things,”GeorgePerec’ssimilarlynamednovelLes Choses,twochaptersofMaryMcCarthy’sThe Group,andMoniqueWittig’snovelLes Guérillères,andmuchofthediscourseofNathalieSarraute’slaternovelsrefersalmostexclusivelytoa“they.”Wittig’ssubjectisfurtherlimited to the female “they” form (elles) that is possible in French.Otherfeministauthorshavefurtherextendedtheparametersofthirdperson fiction. JuneArnold, in The cook and the carpenter, createdagenderneutralpronoun,“Na,” torefer toallpeople regardlessofgender.KathyAcker’sstory“Humiliation”(1990) iswrittenentirelyinaprosedevoidofpronounsthatthwartsindividualagency(“Sincewantedtobeawriter,triedtofindherownvoice.Couldn’t.Butstilllovedtowrite.Lovedtoplaywithlanguage”[115])andisthusper-fectlysuitedtoembodythestory’stitularthemeandoscillatesoddlybetween first and third person perspectives. Finally, we should alsoobservehowa traditional narrative stance, “I,” canbe transformedanddefamiliarizedbydividing the letters that compose theword inFrench (j/e), as Monique Wittig does in Le Corps lesbien (1973) assheonceagainseeksaformofnarrationthatwillrepresentadistinctfemaleexperience. Inalmostallbooksthatcenteronnarration,therecomesapointwhen the theorist notes that what is meant by first or third personnarration is not the pronoun being used, but the position of thenarrator. Thus, autobiographies written in the third person such asCaesar’sGallic WarsorThe Education of Henry Adamsareneverthe-lessrelatedfromafirstpersonstandpoint;likewise,onemayaddressoneselfinthesecondpersonwithouttranscendingthenormalbound-ariesofthepositionofthefirstperson.ThisisequallythecasewithstillstrangerexamplessuchasHenryJames’awkwarduseof“one”torefertohimselfatthebeginningofThe American SceneorRimbaud’suseof“he”todesignateapastselfthewriterfelthehaddiscarded.Icannot,however,makethesameconfidentclaimwithalltheexamplesIamassemblinghere.IamnotcertainwhattodowithKathyAcker’sessentiallypronounlessnarration,thatintimatepresentationofasingle


16 / Chapter One

subjectivity that occasionally uses a third person genitive pronoun,suchas“her.”Onepresumes that thiskindofnarrationwouldnor-mallyoccupya thirdpersonposition, though in this exampleAckerseems tobemaking itdo thenormalworkof the firstperson.Thisambiguity ispreciselythepointofthestory:herpracticethusrepre-sentsanevacuationofagency.Wewillpausehereandtreatthisandthemoreextremeexamplesjustnotedastypicalinstancesofthecon-ceptualindeterminabilityanddefamiliarizingpowerofsuchinnovativetechniques thatwillbediscussedat length in the threechapters thatfollow.


1. NaRRaTIvES ENTIREly OR laRgEly IN ThE “WE” FORm

FranzKafka,“Josephina,dieSängerin,oderDasVolkderMäuse,”1924IgnazioSilone,Fontemara,1930WilliamFaulkner,“ARoseforEmily,”1930,“ThatEveningSun,”1931,“AJus-

tice,”1931,“DivorceinNaples,”1931,“DeathDrag,”1932,“ThatWillBeFine,”1935,“ShinglesfortheLord,”1943,“ACourtship,”1948

RajaRao,Kanthapura,1938RichardWright,12 Million Black Voices,1941AlainRobbe-Grillet,“TheWayBack,”1954MauroSenesi,“TheGiraffe,”1963MichaelButor,“LaGareSt.Lazare,”1964GabrieleWohmann,storiesinGegenangriff,1971,andLaendisches Fest,1975PierreSilvain,Les Eoliennes,1971AyiKweiArmah,Two Thousand Seasons,1973ArletteandRobertBrechon,Les noces d’or,1974DonaldBarthelme,“WedroppedinattheStanhope...,”1978,inThe Teachings

of Don B.,1992JulioCortázar,“QueremosTantoaGlenda,”1981MarkHelprin,“NorthLights”inEllis Island and Other Stories,1981EdouardGlissant,La Case du commandeur,1981———.Mahogany,1987JohnBarth,Sabbatical,1982JoanChase,During the Reign of the Queen of Persia,1983NathalieSarraute,Tu ne t’aimes pas,1989JeffreyEugenides,The Virgin Suicides,1993

141

appendix

bibliography of “We” Narratives


ZakesMda,Ways of Dying,1995PatrickChamoiseau,L’Esclave vieil homme et le molosse,1997JoyceCarolOates,Broke Heart Blues,1999JillMcCorkle,“BillyGoats,”2001YiyunLee,“Immortality”and“Persimmons,”2005

2. NaRRaTIvES SUbSTaNTIally IN ThE “WE” FORm

JosephConrad,The Nigger of the ‘Narcissus,’1899HenriBarbusse,Feu,1916MarioVargasLlosa,Los Cachorros,1967EdouardGlissant,Malemort,1975LouiseErdrich,Tracks,1988HazardAdams,Many Pretty Toys,1999

3. NaRRaTIvES WITh SIgNIFICaNT SECTIONS IN ThE “WE” FORm

GustaveFlaubert,beginningofMadame Bovary,1857YevgenyZamyatin,We,1924VictorSerge,Naissance de notre force,1931GertrudeStein,Everybody’s Autobiography,Chapter4,“America,”1937AlbertCamus,La Peste,1947SamuelBeckett,L’Innommable,1950VladimirNabokov,Speak Memory,Chapter15,1951CarlosFuentes,“AlmaPura,”1964MauriceRoche,Compact,1966NgugiwaThiong’o,A Grain of Wheat,1967ToniMorrison,The Bluest Eye,1970JuliaAlvarez,How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents,1991JeanEchenois,Nous trois,1992PatrickChamoiseau,Texaco,“TheNoutékaoftheHills”(121–31),1992

142 / appendix


NOTES TO ChaPTER 1

1. IamhereusingthetranslationandparaphrasingofPatrickO’Neill (76).Seehisverydifferentcritiqueoftreatingthenarratorinanthropomorphicterms(76–82). 2. SeeWilliamNelles’article,“BeyondtheBird’sEye:AnimalFocalization,”foraperceptiveoverviewofsomeofthesetechniques. 3. This thesis on the gendering of narrators in turn is further corroboratedfromadifferentanglebyDanielPunday’scannyworkontheimplicitlyembodiedformofeventhemostausterenarrators(2003:149–84).Forastimulatingaccountoftheideologicalmaneuveringsoffemaleauthorswhoemploymalenarrators,seeScottSimpkins’1992articleon“narrativecrossdressing”inSandandShelley. 4. I discuss these and similar cases in a forthcoming article on postmodernauthorsasfictionalcharacters. 5. And as we will see in Chapter Five, even this relation can be skewed inunexpectedways. 6. Even those contemporary biographers or historians who “record” thethoughtsof theirprotagonistsaremakingeducatedguesses;unlike thenovelist,theydonotknowwhatwentonintheirsubject’smind. 7. Foranearlierdiscussionofthe“contamination”ofthenarrator’slanguagebythatofacharacter,seeStanzel192–93. 8. Foradifferentreadingoftheplayofvoiceandnarrationinthiswork,seeMargolin(1990),whoaffirmsthat“thevoicetriestogivelifetoa‘you’lyingonhisback in thedarkby tellinghimhiswhole life story frombeginning toend”(431).

143

notes


9. ForatheoreticallyinformedaccountofPowell’spractice,seeFelber(1995,156–61);Drabble’snovelwillbediscussedbelow. 10. Foradiscussionofthenarrativeethicsofsuchapractice,seePhelan(2005). 11. TheonlyworkIamawareofthatmovesintheoppositedirectionisGer-trudeStein’sAutobiography of Alice B. Toklas(1933),whichconcludeswiththefollowingadmission:“AboutsixweeksagoGertrudeSteinsaid,itdoesnotlooktomeasifyouwereevergoingtowritethatautobiography.YouknowwhatIamgoingtodo.Iamgoingtowriteitforyou....Andshehasandthisisit”(252).Sincethisisanonfictionalwork,issuesofomnisciencedonotarise.IntheenditseffectisratherlikethatofNormanMailerdescribinghimselfinthethirdpersoninThe Armies of the Night(1968). 12. Thispassage is translatedbyandcited inAnnJefferson(1980:100); sheprovidesagoodintroductiontomanyofthemorefamousandextremeformsofnarrationinthenouveau roman. 13. IamherebuildingonFludernik’sexcellentaccount(1994)inNatural Nar-rative,224–36. 14. OnthedifferencesbetweenFrench,German,andEnglishusagesandimpli-cationsofthispronoun,seeFludernik(1996,232–35).ItmightbenotedthattheEnglishtranslationdoesnotemploythepronoun“one”totranslate“man.”

NOTES TO ChaPTER 2

1. Forseveralothertitles,seeFludernik’sbibliography(1994);foradditionalitems,seeSchofield(1999). 2. See,however,IreneKacandes,whoconsidersmanysecondpersontextsasworksin“theapostrophicmode”(2001,141–96). 3. ForadditionaldiscussionoftheshiftingofpronounsinButor,seeMorrissette(“You”13–18),Passias,vanRossum-Guyon(114–74),andKacandes(157–62). 4. DelConte makes a comparable point, observing that this novel suggests“thatintheeighties,freechoicewasillusory.Second-personnarrationexemplifiesthisculturalclimate,foritmanifestsinnarrativetechniquethenotionthatsome-oneorsomethingoutsideofyourselfdictatesyourthoughtsandactions”(205). 5. CarlosFuentes’La Muerta de Artemio CruzistheonlytextIknowoftousethefuturetenseforstandardsecondpersonnarration. 6. For a thorough discussion of gender and the reader(s) of this novel, seeTeresadeLauretis’sexcellentarticle,“Readingthe(Post)ModernText.”Initshenotes,forexample,thatthenarrative’s“you”doesaddressafemalereaderforsixpages,afterwhichCalvinoseemstoneedtoreassurethemalereaderthatthebookisnotlosingsightofhim(139–40). 7. Jonathan Holden similarly observes that “most poems that deploy theblurred-youarefarmoreeffectivewhendeliveredbythepoetinpersontoaliveaudience”(54).

NOTES TO ChaPTER 3

1. Inrarecases,suchasDonaldBarthelme’sshorttext,“WedroppedinattheStanhope. . . ,”the“we”speakerremainsunidentifiedthroughout,creatingan

144 / Notes to Chapters 1–3


irreversibleestrangementeffect. 2. For an exhaustive account of these possibilities from the perspective oflinguistics,seeMargolin(“Telling”116–19). 3. Evenduringthisscene,however,thereisasignificantreturntoacollectiveconsciousnessthatissignaledbythereversionto“we”form:thesolidarityofthemenreappearswhiletheyselflesslyworktofreeWaitfromhisberthbelowdeck(66–73). 4. Theremayevenbeanallegoricalimageofthispreternaturalnarratorinthefigureofthecaptain,whoissaidtobe“oneofthosecommanderswhospeaklittle,seemtohearnothing, lookatnoone—andknoweverything,heareverywhisper, see every fleeting shadow of their ship’s life” (125); his inexplicableomniscience isanaptanalogue for theoscillatingperspectivesof theuncannyvoiceofthetext. 5. IanWatt identifiesa singlenarrator, specifically,“a specialkindofprivi-leged narrator who functions as a collective voice (101). Others postulate two(orevenmore)narrators.JakobLotheidentifiestwomainkindsofnarrator,onehomodiegetic, the “‘narrator as character’ (I as personal pronoun)”; the otherheterodiegetic“theyaspersonalpronoun”(97),andgoesontoclaimthatthesetwobasicnarratingperspectivesarerepeatedlymodifiedandfused;ultimatelyheidentifiessixtypesofnarratingpositions.Stillothersfindthetext’snarrationtobeamistake:JeremyHawthornreferstothework’s“technicalconfusionsinthemanipulationsofnarrativeperspectiveanddistance”(101)andMarvinMudrickcondemnsConrad’s“grossviolationofpointofview”(72). 6. More helpful perspectives on Conrad’s play with voice are offered byJohn Lester, who argues that Conrad’s narrative technique is “more controlledandmoreinventivethanhehasgenerallybeengivencreditfor”(170)andBruceHendricksen,whostatesthatthetext“deconstructsthesubjectwhonarratesbyjuxtaposingathird-personnarrativevoicethatreferstothecrewas‘they’withafirstpersonvoicethatsays‘we’”(27). 7. Shedoes,however,occasionallypossesssurprisinglydetailedknowledgeofsituationssheisunlikelytohaveencountered,asPaulBrianspointsout(39). 8. AsBriansnotes,shestatesthat“thereareonlytwenty-fourhousesinthevillage.Thisseemstinyindeed,untilwerealizesheiscountingthehousesofBrah-mins”(34). 9. ForananalysisofGlissant’s three“we”novels, seeCeliaBritton;on therelationbetweenGlissantandChamoiseau,seeDawnFulton. 10. Thus,oneYukonNativebeginsthestoryofherlifewithahistoryofhernation,thehistoriesofhermotherandothercloserelatives,andtheoriginmythofherpeople.“Shedoesnotevengettoherownbirthuntilpage52(andthenitisburiedinalonglistofherbrotherandsistersarrangedinbirthorder)”(174). 11. Thefusionofrecentlydeceasedtribesmeninthecollectivelivingsubject,as“they”mergeswith“we,”deservesquotation:“Theywouldsitinthesnowout-sidethedoor,waitinguntilfromlongingwejoinedthem.Wewouldallbetogetheronthejourneythen,ourdestinationthevillageattheendoftheroad”(5). 12. “We”narratives continue toproliferate andgain recognition: twoof thestoriesinYiyunLi’sprize-winningcollection,A Thousand Years of Good Prayers (2005),arewritteninthefirstpersonplural. 13. Monika Fludernik has identified a number of other texts that alternate“we” and “I” narration; these include Mauro Senesi’s “The Giraffe” (1963),

Notes to Chapter 3 / 145


GabrieleWohman’s“Fahrplan”(1968),JohnBarth’sSabbatical(1982),andJeanEchenois’Nous trois(1992).Fluderniknotesthatinthesecasesthewetextusu-ally represents an extended first personnarrative, for example, in rendering theexperienceofchildhoodorofrurallife,“anditthereforeincludesthefirst-personnarratorinalargercommunityofplaymatesorvillagefolk”(“Natural”224).Seetheappendixtothisvolumeforstillmoretitlesofotherrecent“we”narratives. 14. Indeed, the most recent criticism and theory of “we” narrations oftenexplicitlyrejectstheparametersofrealism:Britton(136),Woller(346–48),Fulton(1113n3). 15. Genettesimplyassertsthat“thecollectivewitnessasnarrator”isanunre-markablevariantofhomodiegeticnarration(1980,245n).

NOTES TO ChaPTER 4

1. TwoimportantpartialexceptionstothispracticeareFranzK.Stanzel’sA Theory of Narrative,whichincludesafinediscussionofalternatingfirstandthirdpersonpronominalreferencein,forexample,novelswrittenbyaprotagonistthatattimesreferstohimselfinthethirdperson,suchasHenry Esmond(99–110);andHazardAdams,whopointstowardamorefluidmodelofthenarrativetransactionin“CriticalConstitutionoftheLiteraryText:TheExampleofUlysses.”GenettealsodescribesseveralinterestingexamplesofalternatingpersonsinNarrative Dis-course(243–47),onlytodenytheimportanceofpersonasacategoryofnarrativeanalysis. 2. Thus,therationalselfspeaksinthefirstperson,andalwaysdepictstheidinthethirdperson.Interestingly,theidkeepsattemptingtousethefirstpersonplural,apracticewhichthedisgustedIstrenuouslyresists. 3. The specific novels referred to here are Atwood’s The Edible Woman,Drabble’sThe Waterfall,Laurence’sThe Fire Dwellers. 4. For a compelling overview of the book’s narrative stances, see Suleiman,44–49. 5. ForaperspicaciousaccountofthecomplexitiesofBarthes’sposition,someof which are necessarily slighted in my summary remarks, see Andrew Brown(123–25).InWriting Degree Zero,Bartheshadaffirmedthat“‘he’isatypicalnov-elisticconvention,”whilethe“I”cantake“itsplacebeyondconvention”(35). 6. See Cohn (Distinction 163–80) for a sound refutation of this farfetchednotion. 7. Thefewtimesweencounterthewomanexpressingherselfinthefirstpersonoccurprimarilywhenhernemesisdiscoversandreadsheroldjournalsandlettersthebettertomanipulateher.Thatis,wereadherfirstpersonaccountsthroughhiseyes. 8. Foramoreextendeddiscussionofthispronominalstrategy,seeOstrovsky,76–78. 9. Foradditionaldiscussionofhowwomenandgayshaveusedthesecondper-sonandotheruncommonpronominalformstocombatstereotypingandenhancepotentialreaderidentification,seeFludernik,“Persons.” 10. Muchsubjunctivesecondpersonnarrationcouldberewrittenusing“one”insteadof“you”withlittlechangeinmeaning,asthefollowingsentencesuggests,“Togetthereyoufollow/onefollowsHighway58....”Thissimilaritymayhaveled Wittig’s translator to use the English word “you” to render the ubiquitous

146 / Notes to Chapters 3 & 4


“on”ofL’Opoponax.Wittig’ssubsequentannoyanceoverthischoicesuggestsanimportantdifferencebetweenthetwo,adifferenceIsuspectisrootedindivergentnarrativepersons.

NOTES TO ChaPTER 5

1. This isequally trueofa thirdsuperficially similar type: inLa Chute, thenarratorClamenceappearstobetellingastorytoanoffstageaudient,partiallyrepeatingthatperson’srepliesandrespondingtohisquestionsastheyoccurorareimagined(“Youareinbusiness,nodoubt?Inaway?Excellentresponse!”[8]). 2. Foranexcellentrecentdiscussionofthecatechisticformof“Ithaca,”seeThwaites. 3. Senn,itshouldbenoted,hasnouseforHayman’sarranger:“Ifyouwanttolabelthisentity—itorhimorwhynotherorthem?—Narratororarrangeryouare ingoodcriticalcompany,butyouwon’t find thesepersonificationshere [inSenn’swork]”(45). 4. As Monika Fludernik observes, one encounters narratological “difficul-ties at the end of the episode, which resists transformation [into conventionalcategoriesofnarration]becausethequestions‘Womb?Weary?,’ ‘With,’ ‘When,’and‘Where’cannotbeinterpretedrealisticallyormadetotallywiththeprecedingdescriptionofBloom’spostureinhisbed”(“Ithaca,”94–95). 5. Theearliest exampleof this“interpretive”kindofdenarration that IamfamiliarwithoccursintheninthcantoofCamões’The Lusiads,inwhichtheriot-ousadventuresofVascodaGama’screwontheIslandoftheBlessed,afterbeingdescribedwithbrio,arethenstatedtobemerelyallegoricaldepictionsofthemenbeingravishedbyhonor. 6. InadditiontocompellingexamplesfromPynchon,Brooke-Rose,Sukenik,andothers,McHalecitestheactualerasingofeventsinClarenceMajor’sReflex and Bone Structure:“It’sDalewhostandsthere,mouthopen,watchingus.Ierasehim”(20,inMcHale,99). 7. It will be helpful to quoteRobbe-Grillet’s descriptionofBeckett’s use ofthispractice:“inBeckett,thereisnolackofevents,buttheseareconstantlyintheprocessofcontestingthemselves,jeopardizingthemselves,destroyingthemselves,sothatthesamesentencemaycontainanobservationanditsimmediatenegation”(New Novel,33;citedinBegam,217). 8. ThemostthoroughtreatmentofthisgeneralphenomenoncanbefoundinCarlaLocatelli’sUnwording the World,which concentratesonBeckett’s fictionafter 1972. For useful discussions of textual negations in Molloy, see Dearlove(64–67),Hill (72–78), andConnor (56–63),whoobserves that“Time, and thepresentmomentsorstatesofwhichitismadeup,isendlesslyreimagined,sothatthepresentmomentnotonlyrepeatsanothermomentbelongingtothepast,butreconstitutesthatmoment”(62). 9. Here I must disagree with Brian McHale, who asserts that “the ‘erased’stateofaffairsstillpersists, ifonlyasakindofopticalafterimage”(1987:99).I believe the examples adduced here show instead that denarration effectivelyundoestheearlierassertions,renderingthemasiftheyhadnotoccurred,asisthecasewithother statements (false statements, typographical errors, lies)oncewelearntheactualstateofaffairs.

Notes to Chapters 4 & 5 / 147


10. Cohn’s paper (“Discordant”) identifies other theorists, such as Susan S.Lanser,whoearlierhadidentifiedcomparabledistinctions;forthemostcapaciousmodelofunreliability(whichincludessixtypes),seePhelan(2005,49–53). 11. IamherebothdrawingonandstrayingfromEmmaKafalenos’ingeniousnarratologicalaccountofindeterminacyinpostmodernfiction(1992). 12. H.PorterAbbottdiscussesthiskindofnarrationalslippagefromadifferentperspectiveinhischapteronBeckettinDiary Fiction(201–2). 13. ThereadingIwillbeofferingtendstocorroboratethecriticalpositionsetforthbyAndrewKennedy;itisopposedtoscholarslikeJ.E.Dearlovewhoasserts,“Beneath the apparent and artificial diversity of traditional associations is theuniversalfigureofaselfcomingintobeingviaitsself-perceptions,ofanarratorcreatinghimselfthroughhisownnarration”(61).Suchastanceultimatelybegsthequestion“aself”and“hisown”narration,positionsBeckettresolutelyunder-mines. For a more nuanced and compelling framing of this issue that suggestsBeckett “expresses an openness to the possibility of an extralinguistic personalforce”thatis“quitecompatiblewithTheUnnamable’ssuspicionoftheknowingvoice”(54–55),seePorterAbbott(1996:52–62andpassim).Foracatalogueofstatementsinthetrilogyrelevanttothisdebate,seeRabinovitz(95–101). 14. OntheposthumanistimplicationsofBeckett’sassaultontheconceptofper-sonalidentity,seeEricLevy(1980:70andpassim)andBegam(17–25,149–55). 15. Thereareofcoursestillmorepossibilities,severalofwhichhavebeensetforthbyGaryAdelman(2004),67–75,esp.73. 16. EyalAmiranalsoaguesforanultimatelyunifiedposition(116–22). 17. Idonot,however,entirelyagreewithBegam’sconclusion,thatthespaceofthein-between“notonlyrefusestoresolveitselfintoeitherofthesetwotermsbutrenders impossible theirveryarticulation” (156).Thisunresolvedoppositionofbothtermsremains;BeckettdoesnotallowustomovebeyonditviaaDerrideannotionofécriture.

NOTES TO ChaPTER 6

1. Foranoverviewandbibliographyofnarrationindrama,seemyarticlesonthesubject(thelaterofwhichispartiallyreproducedinthischapter). 2. Itcanalsofunctionasagenerativenarrator,asitdoesincasesofCocteauandBenmussadescribedbelow. 3. Foradeftanalysisoftheinterplayofvoiceandtextinthisplay,seeKristinMorrison’sbookonnarrationinthedramaofBeckettandPinter(214–18).

NOTES TO ChaPTER 7

1. Foranexcellent,nuancedcriticalsummaryofthisdebate,seePhelan(2005,38–49). 2. ThisistheonlyoneofseveraldefinitionsstillcirculatingthatIwilldefend,orbelievetobedefensible.SeeNünningforathoroughrefutationofmanyoftheseconceptions. 3. ItisalsothecasethatEliot’snarratorspresentthemselvesasmale;atonepoint,onereferstotheactofstrokinghismoustache.

148 / Notes to Chapters 5–7


4. Foramagisterial accountof themultipleyetunknowable identityof theactualauthorsandredactorsofBeowulf,seeNelles,whoconcludesthatitshistori-calauthor“iscomposedofatleastsevenflesh-andbloodpeople,amongwhomtheinitialcreatorisbyfartheleastconcrete”(“Implied”23). 5. Genette makes this statement after adducing the admittedly monovocalworkofcollaboratorslikethebrothersGoncourt;hedoesnotconsideranyofthemorechallengingcasesImentionbelow. 6. AsDavidHawkesnotesinhisintroduction,thefinalchaptersseemtobewrittenby“someonewhowasveryfamiliarwith[Tsao’s]draftsandwantedadif-ferentending”(18). 7. ThereviewerforThe Nationwrote,“OnefanciesMr.Jameshypnoticallypersuaded to takehisplace in thecirclebetween facetiousMr. [JohnKendrick]Bangs and soulful Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, and caused to produce an excellentparodyofhimself,asifinspiteofhimself”(Bendixen,xxxvi). 8. Naturally, some individualvoicesdoemerge; theydonotperfectlyblendtogether into a single implied author (for example, there is a pronounced shiftin tonebetween the farcical first chapter and themuchmore serious, feminist-inflectedsecondchapter). 9. Ipursuethisanalysisfurtherinmyarticle,“BadJoyce.” 10. OrperhapsitisthatallauthorsofHarlequinromancesaspiretoreproducethetoneandsensibilityofsameimpliedauthor. 11. Thisdoesnot imply that there is any easyway todetermine sucha cor-respondence,only thatonemaybringexternalevidence(essays, journalentries,conversations with friends) to bear on this question in a way that is pointlessconcerning,say,geographicalcorrespondences. 12. Forarecentdiscussionofthisissue,seeLanser,“(Im)plying”156–59. 13. For an elaborate schema employing eleven different levels including theactualauthor,ournotionofthehistoricalauthor,thearranger,thenarrator,etc.,seeHazardAdams,“TheCriticalConstitutionoftheLiteraryText”(90–110). 14. For another example of a clear distinction of a discontinuous historicalauthor, impliedauthor,andnarratee,seeNelles’discussionofGulliver’s Travels(43–45). 15. Seealsopp.25–44and192–206. 16. I develop this position at length in my article, “The Other Reader’sResponse.” 17. ThebestaccountofthegenderofreadingremainsPatrocinioSchweickart’sfoundationalessay,“ReadingOurselves,”inwhichshestates:“Readerresponsecannottakerefugeintheobjectivityofthetext,orevenintheideathatagender-neutralcriticismispossible”(38–39). 18. SeeAarseth(1997)foranuanceddiscussionofthisissue(162–67).

NOTES TO ChaPTER 8

1. For a discussion of the postmodernism of Ulysses, see my article, “TheGenealogiesofUlysses.” 2. SeeFerrer(1990,65–96)foranextendeddiscussionoftheodditiesofthiskindofnarration,whichhetentativelycallsprosopopaea.

Notes to Chapters 7 & 8 / 149


Aarseth,EspenJ.Cybertext: Essays on Ergodic Literature.Baltimore:JohnsHop-kinsUniversityPress,1997.

Abbott,H.Porter.Beckett Writing Beckett: The Author in the Autograph.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1996.

———.Diary Fiction: Writing as Action.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1984.Acker,Kathy,“Humility.”The Seven Cardinal Virtues,ed.AlisonFell.London:

Serpent’sTail,1990.115–31.Adams,Hazard.Many Pretty Toys.Buffalo:SUNYPress,1999.———. “Critical Constitution of the Literary Text: The Example of Ulysses.”

Antithetical Essays in Literary Criticism and Liberal Education.Tallahassee:FloridaStateUniversityPress,1990.90–110.

Adelman, Gary. Naming the Unnamable. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press,2004.

Aichinger,Ilse.“Spiegelgeschichte.”Der Gefesselte: Erzahlungen.FrankfurtA.M.:S.FischerVerlag,1967.

Alldridge,J.C.Ilse Aichinger.ChesterSprings,PA:DufourEditions,Inc.,1969.Amiran,Eyal.Wandering and Home: Beckett’s Metaphysical Narrative.University

Park:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1993.Armah,AyiKwei.Two Thousand Seasons.London:Heinemann,1973.Bal,Mieke.Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative.Toronto:Uni-

versityofTorontoPress,1985(1980).Barbusse,Henri.Under Fire.Trans.RobinBuss.NewYork:Penguin,2003.Barthelme,Donald.The Teachings of Don B.NewYork:TurtleBay,1992.Barthes,Roland.Image Music Text.Trans.StephenHeath.NewYork:Hilland

Wang,1977.———. Roland Barthes. Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang,

1977.

151

works cited


152 / Works Cited

———.Writing Degree Zero and Elements of Semiology.Trans.AnnetteLaversandColinSmith.Boston:BeaconPress,1968.

Beckett,Samuel.Collected Shorter Plays.NewYork:Grove,1984.———. Worstward Ho. NewYork:Grove,1983.———.Company.NewYork:Grove,1980.———.Stories and Texts for Nothing.NewYork:Grove,1967.———.Three Novels: Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnamable.NewYork:Grove,

1958.Begam,Richard.Samuel Beckett and the End of Modernity.Stanford,CA:Stan-

fordUniversityPress,1996.Bendixen, Alfred. “Introduction: The Whole Story behind The Whole Family.”

The Whole FamilybyWilliamDeanHowellsetal.NewYork:Ungar,1986.Bennett,Arnold.The Old Wives’ Tale.NewYork:NewAmericanLibrary,1963.Ben-Zvi,Linda. Samuel Beckett.Boston:G.K.Hall,1986.Boehm,Beth.“ReeducatingReaders:CreatingExpectationsforThe Golden Note-

book.”Narrative5(1997):88–98.Bonheim, Helmut. “Narration in the Second Person.” Recherches Anglaises et

Americaines 16(1983):69–80.Booth,WayneC.“Resurrectionof the ImpliedAuthor:WhyBother?”A Com-

panion to Narrative Theory.Ed.JamesPhelanandPeterRabinowitz.Malden,MA:Blackwell,2005.75–88.

———.The Rhetoric of Fiction. 2nded.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1983(1961).

Borges,JorgeLuis.Collected Fictions.Trans.AndrewHurley.NewYork:Penguin,1998.

Bouloumié,Arlette.“WritingandModernism:MichelTournier’sFriday.”Style26(1992):447–56.

Branigan,Edward.Point of View in the Cinema.Amsterdam:Mouton,1984.Brecht,Bertold.Brecht on Theatre.Trans.byJohnWillett.NewYork:Hilland

Wang,1964.Brians, Paul.Modern South Asian Literature in English.Westport,CN:Green-

woodPress,2003.Britton,Celia.“CollectiveNarrativeVoiceinThreeNovelsbyEdouardGlissant.”

An Introduction to Caribbean and Francophone Writing, ed. Sam Haigh.Oxford:Berg,1999.135–47.

Brooke-Rose,Christine.Thru.London:HamishHamilton,1975.Brown,Andrew.Roland Barthes: The Figures of Writing.Oxford:OxfordUni-

versityPress,1992.Butor,Michel.Inventory.Trans.RichardHoward.NewYork:SimonandSchuster,

1968.———.A Change of Heart.Trans.JeanStewart.NewYork:SimonandSchuster,

1959.———.La Modification.Paris:Minuit,1957.Calvino,Italo.Under the Jaguar Sun.Trans.WilliamWeaver.NewYork:Harcourt

Brace,1988.———.If on a winter’s night a traveller.Trans.WilliamWeaver.NewYork:Har-

courtBraceJovanovich,1981.Carroll, David. “Introduction.” George Eliot: The Critical Heritage. London:

RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1971.


Works Cited / 153

Chambers,Ross.Facing It: AIDS Diaries and the Death of the Author.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1998.

Chase, Joan.During the Reign of the Queen of Persia.NewYork:HarperandRow,1983.

Chatman,Seymour.Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1978.

Cobham, Rhonda. “Misgendering the Nation: African Nationalist Fictions andNuruddinFarah’sMaps.”Nationalisms and Sexualities.Ed.AndrewParkeretal.NewYork:Routledge,1992.42–59.

Cohn,Dorrit.“DiscordantNarration.”Style34(2000):307–16.———. The Distinction of Fiction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,

1999.———.Transparent Minds: Narrative Modes for Presenting Consciousness in Fic-

tion.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1978.Collier,Gordon.“ApparentFeature-AnomaliesinSubjectivizedThird-PersonNar-

ration.”Recent Trends in Narratological Research(GRAATvol.21).Ed.JohnPier.Tours:UniversityofTours,1999.129–52.

Connor, Steven. Samuel Beckett: Repetition, Theory and Text. Oxford: BasilBlackwell,1988.

Conrad,Joseph.The Collected Letters of Joseph Conrad.Ed.FrederickR.KarlandLaurenceDavies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1983.

———.Complete Works.London:Doubleday,1921.Culler,Jonathan.“Omniscience.”Narrative 12.1(2004):22–34.Dearlove, J.E.Accommodating the Chaos: Samuel Beckett’s Nonrelational Art.

Durham:DukeUniversityPress,1982.de Lauretis, Teresa. “Reading the (Post) Modern Text: If on a winter’s night a

traveller.”Calvino Revisited.Ed.FrancoRicci.Ottawa:DoverhouseEditions,Inc.,1989.131–45.

DelConte,Matt.“WhyYouCan’tSpeak:SecondPersonNarration,Voice,andaNewModelforUnderstandingNarrative.”Style37:2(2003):204–19.

Diamond,Elin.“RefusingtheRomanticismofIdentity:NarrativeInterventionsinChurchill,Benmusa,Duras.”Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre,ed.Sue-EllenCase.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1984.92–105.

Diderot,Denis.“ThisisnotaStory.”The Penguin Book of French Short Stories,ed.EdwardMarielle.Harmondsworth,UK:Penguin,1968.

Dostoevsky,Fyodor.Great Short Works of Fyodor Dostoevsky.Ed.RonaldHing-ley.NewYork:Harper,1968.

Drabble,Margaret.The Waterfall.NewYork:NewAmericanLibrary,1986.Ellison,Ralph.Invisible Man.NewYork:RandomHouse,1972(1952).Erdrich,Louise.Tracks.NewYork:HenryHolt,1988.Eugenides, Jeffrey. The Virgin Suicides. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux,

1993.Farah,Nuruddin.Maps.NewYork:RandomHouse,1986.Faulkner,William.As I Lay Dying.NewYork:Random,1987.———. Light in August.NewYork:Random,1987.———.Collected Stories.NewYork:Random,1977.Ferrer,Daniel.Virginia Woolf and the Madness of Language.Trans.GeoffreyBen-

ningtonandRachelBowlby.NewYork:Routledge,1990.


154 / Works Cited

Fielding,Henry.The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling.Ed.MartinC.Battestin.Middleton,CT:WesleyanUniversityPress,1975.

Fludernik, Monika. “New Wine in Old Bottles?: Voice, Focalization, and NewWriting.”New Literary History32(2001):619–38.

———.Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology.London,NewYork:Routledge,1996.———.“PronounsofAddressand‘Odd’ThirdPersonForms:TheMechanicsof

InvolvementinFiction.”New Essays in Deixis.Ed.KeithGreen.Amsterdam:Rodopi,1995.99–129.

———. “Introduction: Second-Person Narrative and Related Issues.” Style 28(1994):281–311.

———.“Second-PersonNarrative:ABibliography.”Style28(1994):525–48.———. “‘Ithaca’—An Essay in Non-Narrativity.” International Perspectives on

James Joyce.Ed.GottliebGaiser.Troy,NY:Whitston,1986.90–107.Foley,Barbara.Telling the Truth: The Theory and Practice of Documentary Fic-

tion.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1989.Ford,FordMadox.The Good Soldier.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1990.Forster,E.M.Aspects of the Novel.NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,Jovanovich,n.d.

(1927).Frye,JoanneS.Living Stories, Telling Lives: Women and the Novel in Contempo-

rary Experience.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1986.Fuentes,Carlos.Obras Completas.Vol.1.MexicoCity:Aguilar,1974.———.Aura.NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,1965.———. The Death of Artemio Cruz. Trans. Sam Hileman. New York: Farrar,

StrausandGiroux,1964.Fugard, Athol. My Children! My Africa! New York: Theatre Communications

Group,1990.Fulton,Dawn.“Romans des Nous:TheFirstPersonPluralandCollectiveIdentity

inMartinique.”The French Review76(6),2003:1104–14.Gallant,Mavis.“WithaCapitalT.”Home Truths.NewYork:RandomHouse,

1985.317–30.Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse Revisited. Trans. Jane E. Lewin. Ithaca:

CornellUniversityPress,1988(1983).———.Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method.Trans.JaneE.Lewin.Ithaca:

CornellUniversityPress,1980(1972).Gissing,George.New Grub Street.NewYork:ModernLibrary,2002.Glissant,Edouard.Caribbean Discourse: Selected Essays.Trans.J.MichaelDash.

Charlottesville:UniversityofVirginiaPress,1989.Gogol, Nikolai. Dead Souls. Trans. Bernard G. Guerney. New York: Modern

Library,1965.Goytisolo,Juan.Landscapes after the Battle.Trans.HelenLane.NewYork:Seaver

Books,1987(1982).Greene,Gayle.Changing the Story: Feminist Fiction and the Tradition.Blooming-

ton:IndianaUniversityPress,1991.Hampson, Robert. “‘Allowing for Possible Error’: Education and Catechism in

‘Ithaca.’” Joyce’s “Ithaca,” ed. Andrew Gibson. European Joyce Studies 6.Amsterdam:Rodopi,1996.229–67.

Hawkes,David.“Introduction.”The Story of the Stone,CaoXueqin.Trans.DavidHawkes.Baltimore:Penguin,1973.Volume1,15–45.


Works Cited / 155

Hawkes,John.The Lime Twig.NewYork:NewDirections,1961.———.Virginie: Her Two Lives.NewYork:Harper,1982.Hawthorn,Jeremy.Joseph Conrad: Narrative Technique and Ideological Commit-

ment.London:Arnold,1990.Hayles,N.Katherine.How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics,

Literature, and Informatics.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1999.Hayman,David.Ulysses: The Mechanics of Meaning.Rev.Ed.Madison:Univer-

sityofWisconsinPress,1982.Helprin,Mark.Ellis Island and Other Stories.NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,Jova-

novich,1981.Hendricksen, Bruce. Nomadic Voices: Conrad and the Subject of Narrative.

Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1992.Herman, David. Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln:

UniversityofNebraskaPress,2002.Hesla, David H. The Shape of Chaos: An Interpretation of the Art of Samuel

Beckett.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1971.Hill,Leslie.Beckett’s Fiction: In Different Words.Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-

sityPress,1990Holden,Jonathan.The Rhetoric of the Contemporary Lyric.Bloomington:Indi-

anaUniversityPress,1980.Howells, William Dean et al. The Whole Family: A Novel by Twelve Authors.

NewYork:Ungar,1986.Husson,Didier.“TheLogicofNarrativePossibilities:AStudyoftheCompatibili-

tiesamongtheVariablesofNarrative.”Poetique22(1991):289–313.Hwang,DavidHenry.M. Butterfly.NewYork:NAL,1989.Irigaray,Luce.The Irigaray Reader.Ed.MargaretWhitford.Oxford:BasilBlack-

well,1991.Jaffe,Audrey.Vanishing Points: Dickens, Narrative, and Omniscience. Berkeley:

UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1991.James,Henry.Theory of Fiction: Henry James.Ed.JamesE.Miller,Jr.Lincoln:

UniversityofNebraskaPress,1972.Jefferson,Ann.The Nouveau Roman and the Poetics of Fiction.Cambridge:Cam-

bridgeUniversityPress,1980.Joyce,James.Ulysses: The Corrected Text.Ed.Gableretal.NewYork:Random,

1986.Kacandes,Irene.Talk Fiction: Literature and the Talk Explosion.Lincoln:Univer-

sityofNebraskaPress,2001.Kafalenos,Emma.“TowardaTypologyofIndeterminacyinPostmodernNarra-

tive.”Comparative Literature44(1992):380–408.Kayser,Wolfgang.Entstehung und Krise des modernen Romans.Stuttgart:Met-

zler,1954.Keen,Suzanne.Narrative Form. NewYork:St.Martin’s,2003.Kennedy,AndrewK.Samuel Beckett.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1989.Kincaid,Jamaica.A Small Place.NewYork:Penguin,1988.Kingston, Maxine Hong. The Woman Warrior: Memoir of a Girlhood among

Ghosts.NewYork:Knopf,1977.Kirby,JohnT.“TowardaRhetoricofPoetics:RhetorasAuthorandNarrator.”

Journal of Narrative Technique22(1992):1–22.


156 / Works Cited

Kozloff,Sarah.Invisible Storytellers: Voice-Over Narration in American Fiction and Film.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1988.

Lanser,SusanS.“(Im)plyingtheAuthor.”Narrative9(2001):153–60.———. “Queering Narratology.” Ambiguous Discourse: Feminist Narratology

and British Women Writers,ed.KathyMezei.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1996.250–61.

———.Fictions of Authority: Women Writers and Narrative Voice.Ithaca:Cor-nellUniversityPress,1992.

———.The Narrative Act: Point of View in Prose Fiction.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1981.

Lawrence,Karen.The Odyssey of Style in Ulysses.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1981.

Lejeune, Philippe. “The Autobiographical Contract.” French Literary Theory Today,ed.TzvetanTodorov.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1982.192–222.

Lester,John.“Conrad’sNarratorsinThe Nigger of the ‘Narcissus.’”Conradiana12(1980):163–72.

Levy,Eric.Beckett and the Voice of the Species.Totowa,NJ:BarnesandNoble,1980.

Lispector,Clarice.The Stream of Life.Trans.ElizabethLoweandEarlFritz.Min-neapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1989.

Livingston, Paisley. Art and Intention: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2005.

Locatelli,Carla.Unwording the World: Samuel Beckett’s Prose Works after the Nobel Prize.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1990.

Lothe,Jakob.Conrad’s Narrative Method.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1989.Macaskill,Brian.“ChartingJ.M.Coetzee’sMiddleVoice.”Contemporary Litera-

ture35(1994):441–75.Margolin, Uri. “Collective Perspective, Individual Perspective, and the Speaker

in Between: On ‘We’ Literary Narratives.” New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective,ed.WillievanPeerandSeymourChatman.Albany:SUNYPress,2001.241–55.

———.“TellingOurStory:On‘We’LiteraryNarratives.”Language and Litera-ture5:2(1996):115–33.

———.“Narrative‘You’Revisited.”Language and Style23:4(1990):425–46.Martin,Timothy.“UlyssesasaWhole.”A Collideorscape of Joyce,ed.RuthFreh-

nerandUrsulaZeller.Dublin:Lilliput,1998.202–14.Martin,Wallace.Recent Theories of Narrative. Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,

1986.McCarthy,Mary.The Company She Keeps.NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,1942.McHale,Brian.Postmodernist Fiction.NewYork:Methuen,1987.———. “‘You Used to Know What These Words Mean’: Misreading Gravity’s

Rainbow.”Language and Style18(1985):93–118.McInerney,Jay.Bright Lights, Big City.NewYork:RandomHouse,1984.Mda,Zakes.Ways of Dying.NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,1995.Merwin,W.S.“TheSecondPerson.”The Miner’s Pale Children.NewYork:Ath-

eneum,1970.116–17.Minh-Ha,TrinhT.Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism.


Works Cited / 157

Bloomington:UniversityofIndianaPress,1989.Moore,Lorrie.Self-Help.NewYork:NAL,1986.Moorjani, Angela K. Abysmal Games in the Novels of Samuel Beckett. North

Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures, Number 219.Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department ofRomanceLanguages,1982.

Moravia,Alberto.Two: A Phallic Novel.Trans.AngusDavidson.NewYork:Far-rar,StrausandGiroux,1972.

Morris,Adalaide.“FirstPersonsPluralinContemporaryFeministFiction.”Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature11(1992):11–29.

Morrison, Kristin. Canters and Chronicles: The Use of Narrative in the Plays of Samuel Beckett and Harold Pinter.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1983.

Morrissette,Bruce.The Novels of Robbe-Grillet.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1975.

———.“Narrative ‘You’ inContemporaryLiterature.” Comparative Literature Studies2(1965):1–24.

Mudrick,Marvin.“TheArtist’sConscienceandThe Nigger of the ‘Narcissus.’”Twentieth Century Interpretations of The Nigger of the ‘Narcissus,’ ed.JohnA.Palmer.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall,1969.

Nabokov, Vladimir. The Annotated Lolita. Ed. Alfred Appel, Jr. New York:McGrawHill,1970.

Nelles, William. “Historical and Implied Authors and Readers.” Comparative Literature45(1993):22–46.

———. “Beyond the Bird’s Eye: Animal Focalization.” Narrative 9.2 (2001):188–94.

———.“OmniscienceforAtheists:Or,JaneAusten’sInfallibleNarrator.”Narra-tive14.2(2006):118–31.

NgugiwaThiong’o.A Grain of Wheat.London:Heinemann,1967.Nielsen,HenrikSkov.“TheImpersonalVoiceinFirst-PersonFiction.”Narrative

12(2004)133–50.Norris,Margot.Suspicious Readings of Joyce’s Dubliners.Philadelphia:Univer-

sityofPennsylvaniaPress,2003.Nünning, Ansgar. “Deconstructing and Reconceptualizing the Implied Author:

TheResurrectionofanAnthropomorphizedPassepartoutortheObituaryofa Critical Phantom?” Grenzüberschreitungen: Narratologie im Kontext, ed.Walter Grunzweig and Andreas Solbach. Tübingen: Günther Narr Verlag,1999.53–73.

Oates,JoyceCarol.Broke Heart Blues.NewYork:Dutton,1999.———.The Wheel of Love and Other Stories.NewYork:Vanguard,1970.O’Brien,Edna.A Pagan Place.London:Penguin,1971(1970).O’Bryan-Knight,Jean.“FromSpinstertoEunuch:WilliamFaulkner’s‘ARosefor

Emily’ and Mario Vargas Llosa’s Los cachorros.” Comparative Literature Studies34(1997):328–47.

O’Neill,Patrick.Fictions of Discourse: Reading Narrative Theory.Toronto:Uni-versityofTorontoPress,1994.

Orieux,Jean.Voltaire.Trans.BarbaraBrayandHelenR.Lane.GardenCity,NY:Doubleday,1979.


158 / Works Cited

Ortiz-Robles,Mario.“GeorgeEliot’sMiddleVoice.”Paperreadatthe19thNar-rativeConference,Burlington,VT,April24,2004.

Ostrovsky,Erika.A Constant Journey: The Fiction of Monique Wittig.Carbon-dale:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,1991.

Passias,Katherine.“DeepandSurfaceStructureoftheNarrativePronounVousinButor’sLa ModificationandItsRelationshiptoFreeIndirectStyle.”Language and Style9(1976):197–212.

Peake,C.H.James Joyce: The Citizen and the Artist.Stanford,CA:StanfordUni-versityPress,1977.

Penner,Dick.Countries of the Mind: The Fiction of J. M. Coetzee.Westport,CT:Greenwood,1989.

Perec,Georges.Un homme qui dort.Paris:Denoel,1967.Phelan,James.Living to Tell about It: A Rhetoric and Ethics of Character Narra-

tion.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2005.———.“NarrativeJudgmentsandtheRhetoricalTheoryofNarrative:IanMcE-

wan’sAtonement.”A Companion to Narrative Theory,ed.JamesPhelanandPeterRabinowitz.Malden,MA:Blackwell,2005.322–36.

———.“Self-Help forNarrateeandNarrativeAudience:How‘I’—and‘You’?—Read‘How.’”Style28(1994):350–65.

———.Reading People, Reading Plots: Character, Progression and the Interpreta-tion of Narrative.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1989.

Phillips,Caryl.Crossing the River.NewYork:Knopf,1994.Pinget,Robert.Passacaglia.Trans.BarbaraWright.NewYork:RedDust,1978.Prince, Gerald. A Dictionary of Narratology. Rev. ed. Lincoln: University of

NebraskaPress,2003.———.“TheDisnarrated.”Style22(1988):1–8.Proust, Marcel. Marcel Proust on Art and Literature. Trans. Sylvia Townsend

Warner.NewYork:CarrollandGraf,1984.Punday,Daniel.Narrative Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Narratology. NewYork:

PalgraveMacmillan,2003.Queenan,Joe.“Ghosts intheMachine.”New York Times Book Review.March

20,2005.7–8.Rabinovitz,Rubin.Innovation in Samuel Beckett’s Fiction.Urbana:Universityof

IllinoisPress,1992.Rabinowitz, Peter. “‘Betraying the Sender’: The Rhetoric and Ethics of Fragile

Texts.”Narrative2(1994):301–13.Rao,Raja.Kanthapura.NewYork:NewDirections,1963.Richardson,Brian.“BadJoyce:Anti-AestheticPracticesinUlysses.”Hypermedia

Joyce Studies 7.1(2006).http://www.hjs.ff.cuni.cz;http://www.geocities.com/hypermedia_joyce/.

———.“WhentheAuthorIstheNarrator:Nabokov’sTextualIntrusionsandtheQuestionofFictionality”(forthcoming).

———.“Introduction:ConradandtheReader.”Conradiana35(2003):1–6.———.“VoiceandNarrationinPostmodernDrama.”New Literary History32

(2001):681–94.———. “The Genealogies of Ulysses, the Invention of Postmodernism, and the

NarrativesofLiteraryHistory.”ELH67(2000):1035–54.———.“LinearityandItsDiscontents:RethinkingNarrativeFormandIdeological


Works Cited / 159

Valence.”College English62(2000):685–95.———.“TheOtherReader’sResponse:OnMultiple,Divided,andOppositional

Audiences.”Criticism39(1997):31–53.———.“PointofViewinDrama:DiegeticMonologue,UnreliableNarrators,and

theAuthor’sVoiceonStage.”Comparative Drama22(1988):193–214.Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London:

Methuen,1983.Robbe-Grillet,Alain.Project for a Revolution in New York.Trans.RichardHow-

ard.NewYork:Grove,1972.———.For a New Novel: Essays on Fiction.Trans.RichardHoward.NewYork:

Grove,1965.———.Two Novels by Robbe-Grillet: Jealousy and In the Labyrinth.Trans.Rich-

ardHoward.NewYork:Grove,1965.Roche, Maurice. Compact. Trans. Mark Pollizotti. Elmwood Park, IL: Dalkey

Archive,1988.———.Compact.Paris:Seuil,1966.Rushdie,Salman.Midnight’s Children.NewYork:Knopf,1981.Ryan, Marie-Laure. “The Narratorial Functions: Breaking Down a Theoretical

Primitive.”Narrative9(2001):146–52.Sarraute,Nathalie.You Don’t Love Yourself.Trans.BarbaraWright.NewYork:

Brazilier,1990.———.Tu ne t’aimes pas.Paris:Gallimard,1989.Schofield,Dennis.Second Person Fiction.http://members.westnet.com.au/emmas/

2p/index2.htm(accessed1999).Schweickart, Patrocinio P. “Reading Ourselves: Toward a Feminist Theory of

Reading.”Gender and Reading: Essays on Readers, Texts, and Contexts.Ed.ElizabethA.FlynnandPatrocinioP.Schweickart.Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1986.31–62.

Senn,Fritz.“‘Ithaca’:PortraitoftheChapterasaLongList.”Joyce’s “Ithaca,”ed.AndrewGibson.Amsterdam:Rodopi,1996.31–76.

Serge,Victor.Birth of our Power.Trans.RichardGreeman.NewYork:Doubleday,1967.

Silone, Ignazio. The Abruzzo Trilogy: Fontamara, Bread and Wine, The Seed Beneath the Snow. Trans. Eric Mosbacher. South Royalton, VT: SteerforthItalia,2000.

Simion,Eugen.The Return of the Author.Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1996.

Simpkins,Scott.“TheyDotheMeninDifferentVoices:NarrativeCrossDressinginSandandShelley.”Style26(1992):400–418.

Sollers,Philippe.Event.Trans.BruceBendersonandUsuleMolinaro.NewYork:RedDust,1986.

Stanzel,FranzK.A Theory of Narrative.Trans.CharlotteGoedsche.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984(1979).

Stoppard,Tom.Squaring the Circle: Poland 1980–81.London:FaberandFaber,1984.

Suleiman, Susan R. “Of Readers and Narratees: The Experience of Pamela.”L’Esprit Createur21(1981):89–97.

Thackeray, William Makepeace. Vanity Fair. The Works of William Makepeace


160 / Works Cited

Thackeray. The Biographical Edition.NewYork:Harpers,1903.Vol.1.Thwaites,Tony.“Catechistics,orWherewasMosesWhentheLightsWentOut?

Q,A,andHospitalityin‘Ithaca.’”James Joyce Quarterly(forthcoming).Toolan, Michael J. Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction. New York:

Routledge,1988.vanRossum-Guyon,Francoise.Critique du roman: Essai surLaModificationde

Michel Butor.Paris:Gallimard,1970.VargasLlosa,Mario.Los jefes, Los cachorros.Barcelona:SeixBarral,1991.———. The Cubs and Other Stories. Trans. Gregory Kolovakos and Ronald

Christ.NewYork:Noonday,1989.Vogel, Paula.The Baltimore Waltz and Other Plays.NewYork:TheatreCom-

municationsGroup,1996.Vonnegut,Kurt.Slaughterhouse-Five.NewYork:Random,1991(1969).Warhol,Robyn.“Making‘Gay’and‘Lesbian’intoHouseholdWords:HowSerial

FormWorksinArmisteadMaupin’sTales of the City.”Contemporary Litera-ture40(1999):379–402.

Warhol,RobynR.Gendered Interventions: Narrative Discourse in the Victorian Novel.NewBrunswick:RutgersUniversityPress,1989.

Watt, Ian.Conrad in the Nineteenth Century.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1979.

Weldon,Fay.The Cloning of Joanna May.NewYork:Viking,1990.Williams,Tennessee.The Glass Menagerie.NewYork:NewDirections,1970.Willis, Sharon. Marguerite Duras: Writing on the Body. Urbana: University of

IllinoisPress,1987.Wilson,GeorgeM.Narration in Light: Studies in Cinematic Point of View.Balti-

more:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1986.Woller, Joel. “First-person Plural: The Voice of the Masses in Farm Secu-

rity Administration Documentary.” JNT: Journal of Narrative Theory 29.3(1999):340–66.

Wong, Hertha D. Sweet. “First Person Plural: Subjectivity and Community inNative American Women’s Autobiography.” In Women, Autobiography, Theory: A Reader.Ed.SidonieSmithandJuliaWatson.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,1998.168–78.

Woolf,Virginia.The Diary of Virginia Woolf(5Volumes).Ed.AnneOlivierBell.London:Penguin,1977–84.

———.The Waves.NewYork:HBJ,n.d.(1931).———.A Room of One’s Own.NewYork:HBJ,n.d.(1929).———.To the Lighthouse.NewYork:HBJ,n.d.(1927).———.Jacob’s Room.NewYork:HBJ,n.d.(1922).Wright,Richard.12 Million Black Voices.NewYork:Thunder’sMouth,1988.Zamyatin,Yevgeny.We.Trans.MirraGinsburg,NewYork:Viking,1972.


161

indexAarseth,Espen,150n18Abbott,H.Porter,148n12,148n13Acker,Kathy,“Humiliation,”15–16Adams,Hazard,146n1,149n13;Many

Pretty Toys,54Aichinger,Ilse,“Spiegelgeschichte,”20,

35–36Alvarez,Julia,How the Garcia Girls

Lost Their Accents,52Amis,Kingsley,123anti-poetics,7,28,35,135–40.See also

narrative,unnaturalapostrophe,18Armah,AyiKwei,Two Thousand Sea-

sons,49Arnold,June,The cook and the carpen-

ter,4,15arranger,82,120author,actual,5,115–16,117–20,

125–29;andnarrator,4–5,124–29,132–33;forged,116;implied,114–33;pseudonymous,116

autobiography,116

Bal,Mieke,4,114Balzac,Honoréde,120Barbuse,Henri,Feu,43

Barnes,Julian,Flaubert’s Parrot,4Barth,John,Sabbatical,38Barthelme,Donald,“WeDroppedin

attheStanhope...,”144n1;“YouAreasBraveasVincentvanGogh,”105

Barthes,Roland,9,66–67,73,131,134

Beatles,118–19Beckett,Samuel,124;“TheCalmative,”

3;“Cascando,”108;Company,10,95;“Fizzle4,”102;Malone Dies,96–97;Molloy,87,89–90,95–96,103–4;105;“NotI,”110–11;Stories and Texts for Nothing,12;The Unnamable,31,76,83–84,95,97–102;Watt,12–13;Worstward Ho,92–93,138–39

Begam,Richard,90,100,148n14,148n17

Bendixen,Alfred,119–20,149n7Benmussa,Simone,The Singular Life of

Albert Nobbs,109Bennett,Arnold,The Old Wives’ Tale,

88Ben-Zvi,Linda,149n4Beowulf,149n4


162 / Index

Boehm,Beth,11Bolger,Dermot,Finbar’s Hotel,120Bonheim,Helmut,22Booth,Wayne,115–16,122,125,

127–29Borges,JorgeLuis,“BorgesandI,”

131;“TheCircularRuins,”13;“TheHouseofAsturion,”7;“TheImmortal,”104;“TheShapeoftheSword,”10

Bouloumié,Arlette,65Branigan,Edward,34Brecht,Bertold,107Brians,Paul,145n7,145n8Britton,Celia,57,58,145n9,146n14Brooke-Rose,Christine,Thru,76,105Brown,Andrew,66,146n5Bunyan,John,Pilgrim’s Progress,

129–30Butor,Michel,12;“LaGareSt.Laz-

are,”57;La Modification,21–22,35–36

Byron,GeorgeGordon,Lord,2,116,124,129

Calvino,Italo,124;The Castle of Crossed Destinies,3;If on a win-ter’s night a traveler,31–33,36;“AKingListens,”19;The Non-Existent Knight,11.

“cameraeye,”8Camões,LuisVasde,147n5Camus,Albert,La Chute,147n1;La

Peste,10Carroll,David,116Carter,Angela,The Passion of New

Eve,4Carter,Asa,116Carter,“Forrest,”116Cervantes,Miguelde,Don Quixote,

136Chambers,Ross,126Chamoiseau,Patrick,50characternarrator,8,10,39–40,57–60Chase,Joan,During the Reign of the

Queen of Persia,50–51,59Chatman,Seymour,114,118,125–26,

132,139Chaucer,Geoffrey,121,131

Cixous,Hélène,Portrait of Dora,109Cobham,Rhonda,69–70Cocteau,Jean,The Infernal Machine,

108–9Coetzee,J.M.,In the Heart of the

Country,138;Foe,4Cohn,Dorrit,6,8,61,94,128,146n7,

148n10collectiveidentity,perspective,39,45–

46,49–50,51,55–57,145n11Collier,Gordon,9Connor,Steven,147n8Conrad,Joseph,117,123,125,128,

130;The Nigger of the ‘Narcissus,’39–43,57,59;Nostromo,117,127–28

consciousness,represented,2,7,13,35–36,40,42,45,47–48,55,56–58,107,131–36

Coppola,Sofia,The Virgin Suicides(film),52–53

Cortázar,Julio,“WeLoveGlendaSoMuch,”48

Culler,Jonathan,9

DanteAlighieri,125Dearlove,J.E.,147n8,148n13Defoe,Daniel,122deLauretis,Teresa,144n6DelConte,Matt,19,144n4deLorris,Guillaume,118deMeun,Jean,116denarration,87–94Derrida,Jacques,148n17Diamond,Elin,109Dickens,Charles,Bleak House,62–63,

70,72,80Diderot,Denis,“ThisIsNotaStory,”

80–81disnarrated,the,88Djebar,Assia,A Sister to Scheherazade,

66Dostoevsky,Fyodor,Notes from the

Underground,2,80Drabble,Margaret,The Waterfall,65,

88–89drama,narrationin,106–13;offstage

voicein,108–10Duras,Marguerite,L’Amant,65–66;


Index / 163

India Song,109

Ellison,Ralph,Invisible Man,2,33–34Erdrich,Louise,Tracks,51–52Eugenides,Jeffrey,The Virgin Suicides,

52expressionism,35

Farah,Nuruddin,Maps,27–28,69–70Faulkner,William,47,59,116;As I

Lay Dying,137;Light in August,91–92;The Sound and the Fury,61,137;“ARoseforEmily,”47;“ThatEveningSun,”59

Felber,Lynette,144n9Ferrer,Daniel,150n2Fetterley,Judith,131fiction-nonfictiondistinction,5,19,20Fielding,Henry,115,125–27film,narrationin,3,34–35,52–53Flaubert,Gustave,Madame Bovary,39Fleming,Ian,123;Casino Royale,7Fludernik,Monika,14–15,19,28,

105,134–35,144n14,144n1,145–46n13,147n4

focalization,hidden,8;pseudo-,89;unnatural,137

focalizer,19Ford,FordMadox,117,123,128;The

Good Soldier,80,131forgery,116Forster,E.M.,72freeindirectdiscourse,1,21Freeman,MaryWilkins,119Frye,JoanneS.,73–75Fuentes,Carlos,Aura,22,35;Cambio

de Piel,66;Inez,66;La Muerta de Artemio Cruz,6,68–69,70,136,144n5

Fugard,Athol,My Children! My Africa!,34

Fulton,Dawn,50,145n9,136n14

Gallant,Mavis,“WithaCapitalT,”26–27

gender,3–4,11,26,28,30,33,50–52,61–62,64–65,73–76,111–13,116,131,144n6,146n9,149n3,149n8

Genette,Gérard,5–6,10,12,21,60,

70,84,114,116,118,126,135,146n15,146n1,149n5

ghostwriters,117Gibson,William,Neuromancer,3Gide,André,Les Faux monnayeurs,72Gissing,George,120Glissant,Edouard,49–50,57Gogol,Nikolai,132–33;“TheOver-

coat,”7Gordimer,Nadine,120Goytisolo,Juan,Paisajes después de la

batalla,68Greene,Gayle,68

Hampson,Robert,81Handke,Peter,“InsultingtheAudi-

ence,”34Hawkes,David,149n6Hawkes,John,The Lime Twig,17,35;

Sweet William,3;Virginie: Her Two Lives,103

Hawthorn,Jeremy,145n5Hawthorne,Nathaniel,“TheHaunted

Mind,”17,35Hayles,N.Katherine,13Hayman,David,82,120Helprin,Mark,“NorthLight,”38Hemingway,Ernest,123,131Hendricksen,Bruce,145n6Herman,David,19,26Hesla,David,98Holden,Jonathan,144n7Howard,ElizabethJane,Falling,74–

75;The Sea Change,64Howells,WilliamDean,119;The

Whole Family,119–20Hwang,DavidHenry,M Butterfly,107hypertextfiction,9,131

ideology,3–4,23–24,26–27,33–34,40–52,56,58–59,61–62,72–76,125.See alsogender

interlocutor,79–86Irigaray,Luce,75Isherwood,Christopher,A Single Man,

15

Jaffe,Audrey,9James,Henry,15,67,115,119,136


164 / Index

Jefferson,Ann,104,144n12Johnson,Charles,Middle Passage,103Joyce,James,5,9,137;“TheDead,”

9,128;Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man,5,131;Ulysses,7,61,79–80,81–83,85,120–21

Kacandes,Irene,144n2,144n3Kafalenos,Emma,148n11Kayser,Wolfgang,1Keen,Suzanne,11Kennedy,Andrew,97,148n13Kenner,Hugh,9Kincaid,Jamaica,A Small Place,33–34Kingston,MaxineHong,75Kirby,JohnT.,31Kozloff,Sarah,34,109Kurosawa,Akira,Rashomon,3

Lanser,SusanSniader,4,39,62–63,74,115,145n12

Larsen,Nella,Passing,130Lautréamont,IsidoreDucasse,Compte

de,Les Chants du Maldoror,31Lawrence,D.H.,“Things,”15Lawrence,Karen,120Lem,Stanisław,The Cyberiad,3Lester,John,145n6Levy,Eric,148n14Li,Yiyun,145n12Lispector,Clarice,Agua viva,63–64Livingston,Paisley,126Locatelli,Carla,147n8Lothe,Jakob,145n5Lukacs,Georg,72

Macaskill,Brian,9MachadodeAssis,JoaquinMaria,The

Posthumous Adventures of Brás Cubas,3

MacPherson,James,116magicrealism,35,48–49Mailer,Norman,144n11Major,Clarence,Reflex and Bone

Structure,147n6Mallon,Thomas,117Mann,Thomas,9,128Margolin,Uri,32,38,47,49,50,

55–58,143n8

Martin,Timothy,85Marxism,41,43–44,47–48,72McCarthy,Mary,“TheGenialHost,”

20,28;The Group,15McEwan,Ian,Atonement,11,89McGahern,The Dark,69McHale,Brian,21,33,89,90,147n6McInerney,Jay,Bright Lights, Big City,

23–25,34,35Mda,Zakes,Ways of Dying,55Merwin,W.S.“TheSecondPerson,”

22Milton,John,129mimesisandantimimesis,1,6–7,

12–14,134–40.See alsonarrative,unnatural

Minh-ha,TrinhT.,74modernism,35,95,115,137–38monologizedthought,137–38Moore,Lorrie,Self-Help,28–30Moorjani,Angela,101Moravia,Alberto,Io e Lui,63Morris,Adelaide,51,74Morrison,Kristin,148n3Morrison,Toni,The Bluest Eye,47Morrissette,Bruce,34,84,144n3Mudrick,Marvin,145n5Murdoch,Iris,The Philosopher’s Pupil,

11

Nabokov,Vladimir,5,92,129;Lolita,88,129,130–31;Pale Fire,92;Speak, Memory,64

narratee,6,18,19,22,29,30–32,129–31

narration,“absent-I”(je-neant),8 conventionsof,6–7.See alsonarra-

tive,natural;realismandanti-real- ism firstperson,6,9–13,21,46,67 impossible,8,71,76,78,95–105,

107,111–13 “it,”15,101,139 multiperson,37–38,39–41,61–78,

135 “one”(on,man),14–15,139 passivevoice,15,41 pseudo–secondperson,11–12 pseudo–thirdperson,10–13


Index / 165

secondperson,17–45,77–78 standardform,19–28 hypotheticalform,28–30 autotelicform,30–33,130 thirdperson,6–7,9–10,12,21,

46–47,67,128,144n11 “we”(firstpersonplural),37–60 typesof,59–60 historyof,59narrative,natural,19.See alsonarra-

tive,unnaturalnarrative,unnatural,19,37,40,42–43,

53–56,60,70–71,76–78,81–83,86,95–105,134–40

narrator,contradictory,104 dis-framed,76,100,102,105 engaging,129–30 generative(drama),107 fraudulent,103–4,107–8 humanist,1,86.See alsonarrator,

posthumanist incommensurate,85–86,105,112 nonhuman,3 permeable,7,95–103,104–5,107,

112 posthumanist,1–3,8,13,95–105,

107–13,134–40 posthumous,3,110 reliableandunreliable,1–2,46–47,

53–55,56–58,103–5 transparent,128–29Nelles,William,9,114,116,123,127,

143n2,149n4,149n14NgugiwaThiong’o,A Grain of Wheat,

49,59Nielsen,HenrikSkov,9–10Norris,Margot,9,128nouveau roman,7–8,53,144n12Nünning,Ansgar,114,149n2

Oates,JoyceCarol,Broke Heart Blues,53–54;“WhatIstheConnectionBetweenMenandWomen?”84;“You,”11–12

O’Brien,Edna,A Pagan Place,19,25–26,36

O’Bryan-Knight,Jean,48–49omniscience,9O’Neill,Patrick,143n1

Orieux,Jean,126Ortiz-Robles,Mario,9Ostrovsky,Erica,146n8

Passias,Katherine,144n3Peake,C.H.,7Perec,Georges,Les Choses,15;Un

Homme qui dort,20–21Phelan,James,30,103,115,116,

144n10,148n1Phillips,Caryl,Crossing the River,13Pinget,Robert,135;The Inquisitory,

82,83Pinter,Harold,Family Voices,110postcolonialwriting,13,33–34,49–50,

55postmodernism,32,81–86,87–93,

95–105,107–13,124,131.See alsoMcHale,Brian;narrator,posthu-manist

Prince,Gerald,19,88,115Proust,Marcel,5,115;In Search of

Lost Time,7,92,136–37Punday,Daniel,143n3

Quayle,Dan,117Queenan,Joe,117

Rabinovitz,Rubin,148n13Rabinowitz,Peter,130Rao,Raja,Kanthapura,46–47reader,actual,6,20–22,28,30,31,

33,129–31;implied,20,30,32,129–31;asauthor,131

realismandantirealism,35,42–43,46–47,57–58,138–39

Rhys,Jean,After Leaving Mr Macken-zie,7

Ricardou,Jean,134Richardson,Brian,73,130,131,

148n1,149n9,148n16,150n1Rimmon-Kenan,Shlomith,76,94Robbe-Grillet,Alain,7–8,147n7;Dans

le labyrinthe,8,10,90–91;“IntheCorridorsoftheMetro,”7;La Jaousie,8;La Maison de rendez-vous,8; Project pour une révolution à New York,8,84;Le Voyeur,7–8

Roche,Maurice,Compact,70–71


166 / Index

roman de nous,49–50,57Roth,Joseph,Radetzkymarsch,15Rushdie,Salman,Midnight’s Children,

3,89Ryan,Marie-Laure,135

Sarraute,Nathalie,53;Portrait d’un inconnu,104;Tu ne t’aime pas,53

Sartre,Jean-Paul,73Schofield,Dennis,144n1Schnitzler,Arthur,“FräuleinElse,”3Schweickart,Patrocinio,149n17Scott,Walter,122Sebald,W.S.,5self,32,43–44,56,63–64,109Senn,Fritz,82,147n3Serge,Victor,Naissance de notre force,

44serialfiction,131Shakespeare,William,118Silone,Ignazio,Fontamara,44–46Simion,Eugen,126Simpkins,Scott,143n3Sinclair,May,17Sokal,Alan,116Sollers,Philippe,Drame,66–67Sontag,Susan,“UnguidedTour,”63Stanzel,Franz,10,21,60,62,67,77,

143n7,146n1Stein,Gertrude,The Autobiography of

Alice B. Toklas,144n11Sterne,Laurence,1–2Stifter,Adalbert,“Bergkristall,”14Stoppard,Tom,Squaring the Circle,

109–10;Travesties,107Stout,Rex,17Suleiman,Susan,146n4Swift,Jonathan,149n14Sylvain,Pierre,Les Eoliennes,50

Thwaites,Tony,147n2Tolstoy,Leo,124–25;“Kholstomer,”3Toolan,Michael,114

TsaoHsuehChin,116

vanRossum-Guyon,Françoise,144n3VargasLlosa,Mario,48–49Vogel,Paula,The Baltimore Waltz,

107–8;Hot ‘n’ Throbbing,111–13voice,middle,9voice,narrative,ix,95–98Voltaire,FrançoisMarieArouet,

126–27Vonnegut,Kurt,5vonTrier,Lars,Zentropa,54

WakefieldMaster,The,122–23Warhol,Robyn,129–30,131Watt,Ian,145n5Waverly,authorof,122Weldon,Fay,The Cloning of Joanna

May,64–65Whitford,Margaret,75Wilde,Oscar,124Williams,Tennesee,The Glass Menag-

erie,106–7Willis,Sharon,65–66Wilson,George,34Winterson,Jeanette,“ThePoeticsof

Sex,”84–85;Written on the Body,4Wittig,Monique,75;Le Corps les-

bian,15;Les Guérillères,15;L’oppoponax,14,147n10

Wolf,Christa,Kindheitsmuster,66;Nachdenken über Christa T,66

Woller,Joel,48,146n14Wong,HerthaD.Sweet,51Woolf,Virginia,74,115,137–38;

Jacob’s Room,137;“KewGar-dens,”3;A Room of One’s Own,74;To the Lighthouse,88;The Waves,137–38

Wright,Richard,12 Million Black Voices,47–48

Zamyatin,Yevgeny,We,43–44


Narrative Causalities Emma Kafalenos

Why We Read Fiction: Theory of Mind and the Novel Lisa Zunshine

I Know That You Know That I Know: Narrating Subjects from Moll Flanders to Marnie George Butte

Bloodscripts: Writing the Violent Subject Elana Gomel

Surprised by Shame: Dostoevsky’s Liars and Narrative Exposure Deborah A. Martinsen

Having a Good Cry: Effeminate Feelings and Pop-Culture Forms Robyn R. Warhol

Politics, Persuasion, and Pragmatism: A Rhetoric of Feminist Utopian Fiction Ellen Peel

Telling Tales: Gender and Narrative Form in Victorian Literature and Culture Elizabeth Langland

Narrative Dynamics: Essays on Time, Plot, Closure, and Frames Edited by Brian Richardson

Breaking the Frame: Metalepsis and the Construction of the Subject Debra Malina

Invisible Author: Last Essays Christine Brooke-Rose

THEORYANDINTERPRETATIONOFNARRATIVEJamesPhelanandPeterJ.Rabinowitz,SeriesEditors

Because the series editors believe that the most significant work innarrative studies today contributes both to our knowledge of specificnarrativesandtoourunderstandingofnarrativeingeneral,studiesintheseries typicallyoffer interpretationsof individualnarrativesandaddresssignificant theoretical issues underlying those interpretations.The seriesdoesnotprivilegeonecriticalperspectivebutisopentoworkfromanystrongtheoreticalposition.


Ordinary Pleasures: Couples, Conversation, and Comedy Kay Young

Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis Edited by David Herman

Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation Peter J. Rabinowitz

Matters of Fact: Reading Nonfiction over the Edge Daniel W. Lehman

The Progress of Romance: Literary Historiography and the Gothic Novel David H. Richter

A Glance Beyond Doubt: Narration, Representation, Subjectivity Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan

Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology James Phelan

Misreading Jane Eyre: A Postformalist Paradigm Jerome Beaty

Psychological Politics of the American Dream: The Commodification of Subjectivity in Twentieth-Century American Literature Lois Tyson

Understanding Narrative Edited by James Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz

Framing Anna Karenina: Tolstoy, the Woman Question, and the Victorian Novel Amy Mandelker


unnatural voices - brian richardson

Documents