What Makes Fiction “Meta”?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
What Makes Fiction “Meta”? A comparative study of literary self-reflexivity from Sterne to Winterson Malin Strømberg Masteroppgave i Allmenn litteraturvitenskap ved ILOS 60stp Supervisor: Karin Kukkonen UNIVERSITETET I OSLO Vår 2017 What Makes Fiction “Meta”? A comparative study of literary self-reflexivity from Sterne to Winterson Malin Strømberg !II © Malin Strømberg 2017 What Makes Fiction “Meta”? A Comparative Study of Literary Self-reflexivity from Sterne to Winterson. Malin Strømberg http://www.duo.uio.no Print: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo !III Abstract This thesis seeks to develop a multi-perspective account on the complex aesthetic phenomenon that is metafiction, and aims to nuance those broad definitions of the term that focus exclusively on its critical potential to question narrative and linguistic structures from the inside. Definitions of this kind characterise metafictional novels as deliberately inverting the generic conventions of realism, exposing their own artificiality and putting their fiction- making devices on show, in order to criticise the mimetic function of literature and point towards those fictive structures that lie beyond the works themselves. Due in part to the near simultaneous coinage of the terms metafiction and postmodernism, the former has gained a reputation as the novelistic enactment of the latter’s ontological and linguistic scepticism. A theoretical problem occurs, however, when one considers earlier examples of fiction that employ many of the same reflexive strategies that postmodernist novels do. Commonalities include the mise-en-abyme technique; metaleptic jumps; parodic allusions; conspicuous narrators; and highly fragmented narratives, all of which have the potential to undermine the aesthetic illusion. The question then arises: Is metafiction a transhistorical function of literature or is it an exclusively postmodern phenomenon? By comparing Tristram Shandy and Jacques le fataliste from the eighteenth century with At Swim-Two-Birds and Sexing the Cherry from the twentieth century, this thesis aims to clarify what distinguishes metafiction from other kinds of self-reflexive fiction, and offers an exploration of its various functions. Chapter One examines current definitions of metafiction, and considers how literary self- reflexivity grapples with mimesis. Chapter Two looks at different manifestations of self- referentiality in their historical, philosophical, and critical contexts. Chapter Three asks if the metafictional mode is activated by certain textual qualities or if it is primarily a result of the reader’s interpretative role. It also tries to narrow down the scope of the metafictional mode by distinguishing its object of attention from that of other self-reflexive forms like metanarration. Chapter Four dives more fully into the works themselves with revised classification criteria, and analyses them against their respective historico-critical backgrounds. Chapter Five concludes by arguing that metafiction is a phenomenon that stretches before and beyond postmodernism, and that its general definition should therefore !IV be divorced from postmodern critical theory. That is not to say, however, that contemporary metafiction does not share a number of postmodernism’s concerns about fiction and reality, but a nuancing of the term is in order so that we avoid limiting the functions of this kind of writing to metaphysical scepticism and the critical deconstruction of all narratives. !V Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Karin Kukkonen, for her continuous support, enthusiasm, and invaluable guidance throughout the entire process of writing this thesis. A special thanks to Cecilie, who told me one night over dinner: “Malin, it seems perfectly clear to me what you should write your thesis on. All you ever talk about are strange books that talk about themselves as books!” I also want to thank Hakan for his unparalleled optimism, and Marie for her help and encouragement. Finally, my sincerest thanks to my family and friends for all their love and support. !VI Table of contents 1. Introduction 1-3 2. Chapter 1: What is literary self-reflexivity? 4-13 - 1.1. Definitions of metafiction 4-7 - 1.2. A first look at metacommentary 7-8 - 1.3. Writing about writing; reading about reading 9-11 - 1.4. The problem of mimesis 11-12 - 1.5. Where does this leave metafiction? 12-13 3. Chapter 2: Manifestations of literary self-reflexivity 14-37 - 2.1. Self-reflexivity in the eighteenth century 14-25 - 2.1.1. Parody 15-17 - 2.1.2. Irony 17-23 - 2.2. Postmodernist metafiction 23-36 - 2.2.1. Postmodernism 26 - 2.2.2. Lyotard and “historiographic metafiction” 26-28 - 2.2.3. Feminist historiographic metafiction 28-30 - 2.2.4. Derrida and intertextuality 30-34 - 2.2.5. Derridean loops in Irish fiction 34-36 - 2.3. Conclusion of chapter 36-37 4. Chapter 3: What makes it metafiction? 38-61 - 3.1. Postmodern or transhistorical phenomenon? 38-39 - 3.2. The ontological dominant 40-52 - 3.2.1. Signs of ontological worry 43-47 - 3.2.2. Tipping points 47-49 - 3.3. Comparative studies 49-52 - 3.4. Reading strategy or textual quality? 52-56 - 3.5. Metafiction, metanarration, and the aesthetic illusion 56-62 !VII 5. Chapter 4: Four fictions about fiction(s) 62-89 - 4.1. Tristram Shandy: Illusion-inducing or illusion-breaking? 62-70 - 4.1.1. Narrative idiosyncrasies 63-67 - 4.1.2. Lines and marbled pages 67-69 - 4.1.3. The (post)modernity of Sterne 69-70 - 4.2. Jacques le fataliste: Parody of romantic forms or early metafiction? 70-76 - 4.2.1. No man’s land 72-74 - 4.2.2. Ceci n’est point un roman 74-76 - 4.3. At Swim-Two-Birds: Metafictional modernist or postmodernist? 76-83 - 4.3.1. Self-reflexivity on the (extra)diegetic level 77-80 - 4.3.2. Metafictional, modernist, or postmodernist functions? 80-83 - 4.4. Sexing the Cherry: Historiographic Metafiction 83-89 - 4.4.1. Signposts of artificiality 84-85 - 4.4.2. Illusion-inducing qualities 85-88 - 4.4.3. Historiographi self-reflexivity 88-89 6. Chapter 5: Towards a concept of metafiction 90-92 7. Bibliography 93-102 !VIII Abbreviations TS: The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy: Gentleman, Laurence Sterne. The Text [1759-1767]. Vols. 1 and 2. Eds. Melvyn New and Joan New. University Presses of Florida, 1978. Print. JF: Jacques le fataliste, Denis Diderot. [1796]. Œuvres. Ed. André Billy. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, n° 25. Paris: Gallimard, 1951. Print. AS: At Swim-two-Birds, Flann O’Brien. New York: Pantheon Books, 1939. Print. SC: Sexing the Cherry, Jeanette Winterson. London: Bloomsbury, 1989. Print. OED: Oxford English Dictionary (Online). http://www.oed.com !IX !X Introduction “… a satisfactory novel should be a self-evident sham to which the reader could regulate at will the degree of his credulity.” (AS 25) Amid the plethora of terms designating literary self-consciousness – fabulation, metafiction, surfiction, anti-mimetic fiction, metanarration, postmodernist fiction, auto-representational fiction, romantic irony, et cetera – metafiction is by far the most widespread. The term began to circulate1 in literary theory during the 1970s as a response to the increased self- consciousness of English and American fiction in the 1960s. Despite its popularity, the term is a slippery one that holds a variety of definitions, some of which are in direct opposition to one another. Tom Wolfe argued in 19892 that the American novelists of the 60s and 70s, inspired by the fashionable European idea of “the death of the novel” (47) had abandoned what he considers to be the real and most pertinent function of literature, namely that of “reporting.” (50). Writing, he states, had turned into a high-brow, navel-gazing activity at a time in American history when the opposite was most needed: “a realism that would portray the individual in intimate and inextricable relation to the society around him,” that is, a social realism in the manner of Dickens or Balzac (50). In his view, metafiction is a kind of writing which is essentially anti-mimetic and anti-realistic, and which arose out of contempt for the norms and conventions of nineteenth-century bourgeois realism. The term “metafiction” appeared on stage around the same time as “postmodernism” came to stand for a number of partially connected political, social, philosophical, and cultural changes during the latter half of the twentieth century. Postmodernism is perhaps most often thought of as a “condition”, or a new paradigm of thought and knowledge in Western societies, following Jean-François Lyotard’s influential essays “Note on the Meaning of 1 The term was either coined in William H. Gass’ essay “Philosophy and the Form of Fiction” (1970) or in Robert Scholes’ essay “Metafiction” (1970). 2 “Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast: A Literary Manifesto for the new social novel.” !1 ‘Post-’” and “The Postmodern Condition”. This condition is characterised, according to Lyotard, by a shared scepticism towards the principles and ideals of modernity, and a particular interest in re-evaluating concepts such as reason, truth, history, knowledge, and progress. Its visible counterpart was a heightened self-reflexive attitude that pervaded nearly all disciplines in the arts and sciences (Marshall 172; Dupuy 491). Because metafiction similarly relies on a number of self-reflexive textual strategies, it is considered by many as the true literary expression of postmodernist concerns. We will return to this in the next chapter. A number of theorists, however, would contest this historically limited view of metafiction by tracing literary self-reflexivity back to the works of Cervantes or Sterne. Here arises one of the main issues in this field of study, and one which will occupy a central position in this thesis: is metafiction a transhistorical function, or possibility, of all literature, or is it primarily a postmodern phenomenon distinct from the self-consciousness found in earlier works, particularly those of the eighteenth century? This question is complicated further by the sheer number of definitions and closely related terms attached to metafiction.