論文

Metafiction:
An Introduction on Dramatizing
the Boundaries of Social DiscourseJohn Wolfgang ROBERTS

要旨

メタフィクションは創作と現実の境界を霞ませ，テクストの意味生成を実現するために著者と読者を協働的な関係へと導く。メタフィクションは
我々の社会的アイデンティティと環境に対して本質的に「批判的」である
がゆえ，我々はメタフィクションに意味を追い求める。このようなメタテ
クストは，社会構造の信憑性に疑義を呈し，まさにその構造を考察するための代案を明示することで，我々の社会構造の幻想を断ち切るのである。
遊戯的メタフィクションの結果，読者の意図と動機しだいで社会変革が可能となる「対話的（dialogical）」なプロセスが生じる。
Keywords: Dialectics（弁証法）, Dialogism（ダイアロジズム）, Discourse（ディスコース（文化））, Hermeneutics（解釈学）, Metafiction（メタフィクション）, Play（プレイ理論）, Postmodernism（ポストモダニズム）

Abstract

Metafictions blur the boundaries between fiction and reality, andbring together the writer and reader into a cooperative relationship torealize the meaning of the text. We search for meaning in metafiction― 19 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 31

because it is inherently critical of our social identities and environment.
These meta-texts break the illusions of our social structures by questioning
their truthfulness and revealing alternative ways of thinking about thosesame structures. The result of ludic metafictions is a dialogical process bywhich social change is possible depending on intentions and motivationsin the reader.

1. Introduction
Stories are everywhere. Metafiction matters because ultimately our engagements with
culture are centered on story. We are stories, constantly absorbed in and with stories. The
stories we accept define who we are and they become our identities. Likewise, we are born
into stories, which influence the type of story we would like to portray ourselves as in thiscomplex network of narratives. When stories interact with other stories, we are embarking
on a metafictional relationship with our surroundings. When stories interact with each other,and the interaction influences changes in how we define ourselves or our cultures, we
become aware of how impermanent the person we thought we were, actually is. When we
let stories, and new stories into our lives and we engage with them and become aware of
how we define ourselves in comparison to those new stories, we are also forced to define
and redefine our social discourses.
Metafiction matters because it teaches us that we are stories in perpetualintertextualization, and this is metafiction’s most liberating element. To understand that weare stories, is to know that we are ‘authors’ and that we can co-create the narratives aroundus. In a nutshell, stories are constantly in play, and the way one story-world influences theother, is ‘meta’ because it forces us to use story in order to engage other stories in a criticalmanner. For the curious and willing individual then (intention), this provides the foundation
for deeper investigations of these all-encompassing social narratives.

2. The Hermeneutical Intent for Knowledge
Here I provide a short overview of hermeneutics according to Hans-Georg Gadamer(1976), which serve to make the case for intention. The observer’s quest for knowledge canbe seen as hermeneutical intention. For this reason, open engagements with theory and― 20 ―

Metaﬁction: An Introduction on Dramatizing the Boundaries of Social Discourse

culture are necessary. ‘Open’ in the sense that they are approached in the way Gadamer(1976: 9) describes his universal hermeneutics as a process via an ethic of prejudices,‘constitut[ing] the initial directedness of our whole ability to experience. Prejudices arebiases of our openness to the world’. In other words, in the search for knowledge, whatever
the method or discipline, we must first approach the question of inquiry through our open
prejudices.
Gadamer, (1976: 9) elaborates on the principle of prejudices in quests for knowledge,
This formulation certainly does not mean that we are enclosed within a wall of
prejudices and only let through the narrow portals those things that can produce a passsaying, “nothing new will be said here.” Instead we welcome just that guest who
promises something new to our curiosity.

What Gadamer provides here is the ethical component to culture. A duty, if you will, toengage with culture and knowledge in a way that does not allow stagnating ideologies togrow cancerous. It invites (to use a loaded word) change, and like evolutionary biology andpostmodern theory, does not petrify a particular discourse or stasis as fixed.
Gadamer goes on to state in Philosophical Hermeneutics (1976), on what it means tocreate a ‘productive scholar’ (12), that one does not rely solely on methodology, but on
imagination to create something new. Gadamer makes clear the necessity for methodologicalrigor, but places the value of its application on imaginative engagements with acquired
knowledge. ‘The real power of hermeneutical consciousness is our ability to see what isquestionable’ (Gadamer, 1976: 13). In other words, to expose the fictionality of our social
narratives, glimpse the prejudices that inform those narratives and address those fictions. To
see what is questionable is to see possibility.
This hermeneutical ethic, as I’ve briefly outlined through the theories of Gadamer,
serves to show the way a ‘reader’ or cultural agent can be most useful in molding the type ofsociety that can be most beneficial. As ‘literary’ beings we possess this cultural ‘molding’power to engage the discourses that surround us. And we perhaps should, since not to meansa certain delusional passivity to the various discourses, which in its worst form iscomplacent and unexamined. Metafiction, in the way it operates textually with the reader
and her environment is one such way to activate the openness of our prejudices.

― 21 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 31

3. The Nature of Metafiction: Visions, Playfulness and Evolutionary Need
The word ‘metafiction’ was coined by William H. Gass in an essay entitled ‘Philosophy
and the Form of Fiction’ (1978). Since then, many theorists have written on metafiction,
namely, Patricia Waugh (1984), Linda Hutcheon (1980;2013), Robert Scholes (1979), andMark Currie (1995). What is interesting to note is that though there have been a number of
fairly recent writings on metafiction and postmodernism, metafiction is not solely a latetwentieth century literary genre or trend. Nor is it ‘postmodernist’; though I contend that a
key postmodernist feature is its metafictional quality. There are metafictional works that go
far back into the canon, including Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales (14th century),
Miguel Cervantes’ Don Quixote (part 1:1605; part 2: 1615), and Laurence Sterne’s The Lifeand Opinions of Tristam Shandy, Gentelman (1759-1767).
Metafiction is inherently critical, but not inherently judgmental. Therefore, thecorrespondence between an ‘active’ engagement with ‘meta’ art and the ‘active’ engagementwith culture lies solely in an informed hermeneutical quest for knowledge andunderstanding; from which we can say the ‘meta’ arts when engaged through the ethicalhermeneutical paradigm, creates the awareness of possibilities, first in the individual’s
understanding, and then in the social discourses, that inform the dialectical processes of adialectics of discourse (Fairclough, 2003).
Though theories about what metafiction is and how it affects us vary, the generalconsensus is that metafiction is a self-reflexive form of fiction. That is, the fiction
communicates an awareness that it is a work of fiction, and is therefore inherently critical of
the conventions that are being communicated in the story. Metafiction then, holds theproverbial double mirror to those conventions, illuminating the fictionality of those very
conventions. For this reason, metafiction is not necessarily moral, nor does it suggest
degrees of value for or against social convention. In dramatizing the convention with its
own fictionality, all it does is recognize the malleability of our various levels of identity andsocial structures. In other words, metafiction simultaneously creates and destroys thefictional illusion so that the author and reader find themselves in a cooperative relationshipin order to realize coherent meaning.
Meta-art is aware of it's existence as a work of art. Consider this self-awareness. As
such, it is an art-form that expresses an often puzzling knowledge of it's own artificiality.
Since it is aware of itself as a work of art, it therefore also communicates an awareness that― 22 ―

Metaﬁction: An Introduction on Dramatizing the Boundaries of Social Discourse

it was created and is being observed, or to use a more appropriate term, co-created throughits reception by the observer, or reader as is the case with metafiction. Linda Hutcheon(1980; 2013: 5) hints toward this sentiment when she states,
Reading and writing belong to the processes of “life” as much as they do to those of“art.” It is this realization that constitutes one side of the paradox of metafiction for thereader. One the one hand, he is forced to acknowledge the artifice, the “art,” of what heis reading; on the other, explicit demands are made upon him, as a co-creator, forintellectual and affective responses comparable in scope and intensity to those of hislife experience.

The very nature of a creative process is the building of an illusion. When themetafiction invites the reader to co-create, it also communicates the continuous andperpetual creation process. The text exists within its exposed form, in a way that brings thecreator and co-creator, or author and reader, together in a dialogue regarding its meaning.
Mark Currie (1995: 15) states, ‘Above all, metafiction is committed to the idea of
constructed meanings rather than representable essences’.
Since the text has ‘dramatized’ (Currie, 1995: 4) the two spheres (reality/fiction)
against each other, we, the readers become fully aware of its artificiality. We are consciousof ourselves as readers and we are conscious of the story-world. We are engaged in the rulesof the fictional game by the author and we are engaged in filling in the story-gaps as cocreators. As readers of metafiction, since our responses are crucial to understanding what thepiece means, we become a sort of co-author of the text. Since metafiction is presented to us
in the form of a game that must be ‘figured out’ or ‘deciphered’, it requires active, rather
than passive participation in its understanding. This active participation could becharacterized as a cooperative relationship between the author and reader.
Meaning then is subjective, as it can vary from reader to reader, but herein lies thevalue: the work of art poses a question through its playful elements and the reader engages
these occurrences with critical and creative thought processes in order to generate textual
meaning. And this is the game of meta-arts. This is the dramatization between fiction andreality. Without the reader's cooperation with the creator to establish meaning, or in otherwords accepting the creator’s rules of play to the text, and engaging the creator in a dialogue
over what the piece means, the fiction would just be a ‘meaningless’ jumble of imagery,― 23 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 31

senseless metaphor and language. Hermeneutical intention is key. The meta-text is morethan anything, a posed question-in-itself that generates dialogue.

4. The Metafictional Fabric of Evolution, Play, Language and Social Action
The lowest common metafictional denominator is this: we, like the text, exist
knowingly and simultaneously on a real and fictional plane; both in a bio-cultural sense, andin the metafictional paradoxical sense. That is, embodiments of cultural narratives, but withthe awareness of our fictivity. The author exists as a visionary or seer, or to use Keith
Hopper's terminology, in a ‘shamanistic’ (2009: 3) existence through the probing nature of
the fiction. Contrary to the many nihilistic criticisms against postmodernism (as metafiction
is often viewed as part of the postmodernist condition), metafiction is a reclamation of theromantic inspirations of literature. And in considering that sentiment, it is important tounderstand that metafiction goes beyond the epochs of postmodernism, modernism andromanticism, but to early modern, ancient texts, oral traditions, and even further thanks to
our fundamental nature of storytelling.
Rather than present stories in the fixed word for consumers, metafiction re-ignites theproverbial campfire and gathers us beside the storyteller. The storyteller and listener are able
to break frames, enter in and out, change the route, and cooperate on the construction of thestory. We see the story being told, yet we are engaged. Our concerns help shape the story,
yet we are the audience. Our concerns change over time, and as we continue to participate
in these stories, the way we engage these stories changes as well. And consequently, thanks
to its very malleable and decentered nature, participatory stories like metafiction continue
their relevance in helping us construct who we are in the world. Hopper writes (2003: 2)
All literature is either shamanistic or ritualistic. Most novels are ritualistic in that they
follow a prescribed order of procedures and conventions which are handed down byhistory.

This shamanistic tendency within literature, which Keith Hopper attributes to Pat
Sheeran in the book Flann O'Brien: A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Post-Modernist(Hopper, 2003), sets the lens for how we should initially approach metafiction. In fact thespirit associated with a shamanistic approach to art, in general, is key in visualizing possible― 24 ―

Metaﬁction: An Introduction on Dramatizing the Boundaries of Social Discourse

societies, behaviors and philosophies. This is the dialogic nature of meta-art's shamanism.
Dialogue is cooperative, investigative, and dialectical. Dialectical because societies change
and old truths are sometimes insufficient for modern problems. It questions old truths andputs into play new ideas for discussion. This is not to say that the old works, and the ideas
associated with and hermeneutically extracted from them must be subverted. In fact, themark of classical art is that they possess within themselves shamanistic qualities that havepreoccupied ages filled with meaningful dialogue. And, to be clear, metafiction is not in thebusiness of subversion. As Johan Huizinga states in Homo Ludens (1955), his first criteria
for play: ‘Play can be deferred or suspended at any time. It is never imposed by physicalnecessity or moral duty’ (1955: 8). It is not play till the parties have agreed to the rules bywhich to play it, and, have willingly come to play it. Play is not political, in it's purest sense.
The ‘play’ for meaning, as it occurs in metafiction, is critical and political in the meanings it
produces, but the adherents of the game come willingly. It is not a moral duty, as Huizingastates, but the individual’s intention to arrive at meaning in an otherwise incoherent text. As
Kieth Hopper suggests, “[m]etafiction does not abandon tradition but critically reappraises
and enriches it” (Hopper, 2003: 8). Culture is in a dialogue with itself. Massive changes tothe social structure do not occur instantaneously.
Within metafiction, more so than other forms of literary works, the reader assumes ashamanistic role as a co-shaman, if you will. It is precisely because of the cooperative andplayful nature of the genre, that it carries a higher potency for change. Since meaning iselusive, a great emphasis is placed on the reader to understand what is being communicatedand to arrive at coherence. Michael Mack, in How Literature Changes the Way We Think(2012: 2), describes an ethics of art, which sums up the shamanistic ethic very well. He
states,
Art's ethics is one of resilience. On account of its distance from the real world—its
virtuality, in other words—the aesthetic has a unique capacity to help us explore
different and so far unthinkable forms of action and interaction. Resilience here
denotes more than strategies for coping with change. Art performs an ethics ofresilience which resists the repetition and thus perpetuation of harmful practices.

In other words, there are physical and philosophical aspects to our bio-cultural ‘being,’and ‘evolutionary’ resilience depends on continual criticism and creation of art (in our case),― 25 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 31that ensures a being (or society of beings) over time. I speak of the consilient nature of our
biology and our culture, and specifically how metafiction serves to foster change,
discursively and consequently, adaptively. The focus here however is mainly on thediscursive implications of metafiction.
Robert Scholes creates a simple diagram, to demonstrate this concept visually on page
23 of Metafiction (1995).
Fig. 1This is the foundation to how we are to view metafiction and its boundaries. From here
we will be able to determine the way certain aspects of our nature and social structure arebeing dramatized or blurred. Likewise, the way the metafictional dynamic derives meaning.
First, the two underlined lines. These, we shall consider the two spheres, Fiction andBeing (Man’s culture and biology). This is the main boundary that is obscured inmetafiction. Since metafiction is a story about the creation process of fiction, it is often
difficult to differentiate whether the narrator is the real author or the story author. It isstartling when Borges refers to himself in his own fictions, or when the protagonist of
Muriel Spark's The Comforters (1957) begins to hear her own story being narrated by theauthor, Muriel? Or is it a fictional Muriel Sparks that is narrating? How easy it is to want toplace Tim O'Brien directly in the Vietnamese jungles of The Things They Carried (1990),
because we know he is actually a Vietnam veteran. Yet he tells us ‘I want you to feel what I
felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth’ (179).
Does this come from Tim O'Brien, the protagonist, or the author? It is a metafictionalcommentary on the paradoxical role of the storyteller as a liar and a professor of truth.
Instead of allowing us to suspend our disbelief, the text confesses to be lying, as far as
actual events go. At the same time, we are told of how much more authentic these lies arethan the actual events, because they better convey the intended message or sentiment. Had
the protagonist merely stated that he has been lying to us the entire time, O’Brien would
have better maintained the fictional illusion. The reader would have read it as covertly― 26 ―

Metaﬁction: An Introduction on Dramatizing the Boundaries of Social Discourse

metafictional at best, providing characterization for the unreliable narrator. However, theadditional commentary makes us overtly aware of the fact these lies better convey thehorrors of war. Not only are we told that we are being lied to, but also that the lies are
actually more accurate. At the same time we are forced to confront this conundrum in two
spheres, the fictions we engage in (the novel and culture in general) and the realities (in ourcase, the biological reality, as opposed the Platonic metaphysical one), whether it is worth it
to lie and in our nature to do so. Metafictionally speaking though, the importance of this'realness of the lie' is crucial because it demonstrates that the fiction is supposed tocommunicate something of the truth to the real. It is to demonstrate to the real, that there issomething to be learned and held as valuable in the fictionality of the artifact. They aredramatized, as Scholes tells us, because they mirror each other and reflect elements of theother, which are to be engaged with in discussion.
Within these two spheres there are two sub categories. In the sphere of Being, we havethe ‘existence’ and the ‘essence,’ the existentialism of the physical world and theessentialism of the ideas that inform that existence. Scholes attributes this to a Platonic
understanding of the world, but where I differ and wish to contribute to this theory, is in theessence embodying the biological pre-dispositions. We are still dealing with a deterministic
foundation, but with the material laws of the way the universe operates. I will also add thatthese two sub-categories, also represent two general groups of criticism, behavioral(existence) and philosophical (essential). The behavioral is primarily concerned with theway we function in the world. Scholes contends that most criticism in this sub-group issocialist in nature (Scholes, 1995: 28). This is the sub-group that we will most be focusing
on, since the purpose of the essay is to determine the social significance of metafiction andits abilities to create change (a type of dialectic). On the same page in Metafiction, Scholes
makes the point that the philosophical critics are concerned with the world of ideas, and are
therefore phenomenological, and are mainly ‘critics of consciousness’ (Scholes, 1990: 29).
This is what informs our behavior.
On the Fiction side, the two sub-groups are ‘forms’ and ‘ideas.’ As it is in the Being
sphere, forms and ideas are representative of the existential (forms) and essential (ideas) of
our culture. The cultural side (fiction) is slightly different than the behavioral side. Paul
Naour writes in E.O. Wilson and B.F. Skinner: Sociobiology and Radical Behaviorism(2009: 33/34), ‘Culture emerges as the collective behavior of many individuals aligning tocreate cultural patterns.’ I contend that the existence of being symbolizes the actions of― 27 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 31individuals (the way we act), and the fictional side deals with the actual structure of thecultural patterns.
The ideas of fiction are the rules that govern narrative/culture. It is the narratologicalstructure that enlightens us to the fact that we are witnessing a construction. In the criticalsense, the ideas of fiction are the structural. The forms of fiction on the other hand, do notdive into the narratological elements, but into the formal elements. The formal is theformalist type of criticism. As Scholes reminds us, the structuralist critic is ‘synchronic in
his orientation’ (Scholes: 28), meaning he investigates the scientific structure of the fiction.
Synchronic study seeks to uncover the way a meaning exists, or is conveyed in a given
structure at a given time. This terminology is primarily used in linguistic study, but isequally applicable to cultural studies and for our purposes here since we are talking about
meaning. In cultural studies, and in the Scholes diagram, the synchronic study of structure iswhat seeks to understand the conventions of the status quo. These are the underlying social
structures. This is one social sphere that is engaged in metafictions.
The formalist critic, on the other hand, is ‘diachronic’ (Scholes: 28), meaning he islargely concerned with the aesthetic elements of the fiction. ‘Diachronic’ is anotherlinguistic term associated with how meaning is derived at. However, where the synchronic
focuses on a certain structure at a given time, the diachronic focuses on the structure as it’s
evolved over time. Things that are investigated diachronically both hint towards its
synchronic structure and represent a deviated form of that structure (hence conveying an
historical record of sorts). In other words, diachronic study tries to make sense of these
deviations and come to a meaningful understanding. The diachronic approach is also
dialogic in the way it keeps in touch with its past and offers something to the future. This iswhy, in our artistic case, the fiction of forms (fig. 1), and the associated formalist criticisms
are aesthetic; they deal with the relativistic variety associated with the structural foundation.
In this diachronic approach we try to understand what makes a specific piece of work, apoem, story, university, etc. As we will see later, this formalist quadrant is also associatedwith the romance novel (traditional literary term, as opposed to the realist novel) because
this is where variety to the structure is created.

― 28 ―

Metaﬁction: An Introduction on Dramatizing the Boundaries of Social Discourse

Fig. 1.2(Scholes, 1995: 27; words in parentheses are mine)
Scholes goes on to mention that the phenomenological, and what I have termed thenarratological are dramatized through language. Scholes (1995: 29) states,
As the structuralist looks for the ideas that inform fiction, the critic of consciousness
looks for the essential values that inhere in the experience of fiction. Clearly these two
activities are connected, and language is the bridge that connects them.

Though we will be focusing critically on the behavioral side of metafiction, the play
between the narratological and phenomenological is crucial. This is the epistemologicalfoundation to the argument. This is where we will theorize on the decentering of meaningand develop a discursive dialectics. These are the ideas, between Fiction and Being (culture
and biology) that will determine how the forms of fiction (the formalist) will be dramatize
against the existence of being (the behavioral).
So far I have provided two diagrams very similar to those of Robert Scholes. The firstis a diagram representing the relationship between fiction and reality, and the second
represents the general types of literary criticisms that exist. As far as the genre of metafiction
goes, we would be primarily concerned with the forms of fiction, as in figure 1.
Seeing as how it is in metafiction's nature to dramatize boundaries, and decenter andchallenge what we know, we should take a moment to consider the boundaries that are
actually being blurred within the fiction.
If we take the ‘forms of fiction’ part of figure 1,― 29 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 31

Fig. 1.3

and superimpose figure 1.2 on the forms of fiction,
Fig. 1. 4

then we are able to see the types of fictions that emerge. I have added the critical explanatorylabels in double parentheses.
Robert Scholes terms these four sections of fiction as: forms-romance; existence-novel;
essence-allegory; and ideas-myth (Scholes, 1995: 24). Allegory and myth are both fictionsof ideas, because allegory is also phenomenological. Allegory often serves to uncover truths
about the nature of our being, the ideas that are inherent to us as conscious creatures. Mython the other hand serves to give explanations to those phenomenological ideas. Myth is thesynchronic study of the phenomenological ideas that exist about our human nature.
Likewise, there is play between romance and the novel. The novel simply put is theexistential novel, or rather, the fiction that addresses realism. ‘The most typical form of
behavioral fiction is the realistic novel. . . .The novel is doubly involved in time: as fiction in
the evolution of fictional forms, and as a report on changing patterns of behavior’ (Scholes,― 30 ―

Metaﬁction: An Introduction on Dramatizing the Boundaries of Social Discourse

1995: 25). In other words, fictions that attempt to capture the times that they are written in.
Scholes describes the term romance in it's traditional literary definition; ‘fiction offorms is usually labeled 'romance' in English criticism, quite properly, for the distinguishing
characteristic of romance is that it concentrates on the elaboration of previous fictions’(Scholes, 1995: 25). The romance takes into account the literatures of the past and thismakes parody possible. It contains an inherent space for fictional interstices thanks to its
formalist, aesthetic and diachronic nature. Scholes (1995: 25) elaborates:
There is also a dimension of the fiction of forms which is aware of the problem ofliterary legacy and chooses the opposite response to elaboration. This is the surgicalresponse of parody. But parody exists in a parasitic relationship to romance. It feeds
off the organism it attacks and precipitates their mutual destruction. From this decay
new growth may spring.

These forms are excited by other forms and create new forms and generate new
discussions. This is in itself a metafictional relationship between the different romances anda visionary exercise in form that serves to play against the existential sphere to which it ismirroring.
Within the fiction of forms, it is important to understand that there is interplay between
all the fiction types. This is the metafictional element at work, parodying and challenging
philosophical ideas, and literary trends, human behaviors and the structures that informthem. Parodying and challenging it's own allegories, myths, romances and novels. Any
combination of interplay between the forms of fiction and the outlying categories ispossible. This play is the scope of this essay; the effects of R on existence using an
epistemological language that makes such behavioral criticism possible.

― 31 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 31

Fig. 1.5

Scholes goes on to explain that the ‘forms of fiction and the behavioral pattern of
human existence both exist in time, above the horizontal line in the diagram’ (23). I havethus added the label, ‘Time’ beside the horizontal line. Time exists in this sense, as weshould consider it for pragmatic purposes, culturally above the line and evolutionary below,
labels, which I have also added.
Whereas the social forms and behaviors change in cultural time, the epistemologicalrealm below the timeline, those of the ideas of fiction and the essential values and morals,
are the universals that inform the way we behave and construct our artifacts in evolutionary
time. Our ideas, unlike our essences however, depend on local variation rather thanuniversal traits. Therefore ideas represent the social structure of a long evolution of culture.
They are malleable, but with resistant tendencies. Of course the only way to elaborate onthese evolutionary commonalities is through language. Thus, here we have between theevolution of our bio and cultural essentialisms, the play of language communication. It isquite obvious that culture evolves quicker than our biology. In cultural time, superficial
changes occur which reflect communal adaptations to societal issues. In evolutionary time
we are considering biological adaptations that are genetic to us through processes of natural
selection and continued human survival.
Considering our theory of mind, which allows us to ‘describe our ability to explain
behavior in terms of underlying thoughts, feelings, desires, and intentions’ (Zunshine , 2010b: 117), it would be important to consider our cognitive faculties at an intersection withtime. I have added ‘cognitive’ to the vertical line to demonstrate that it is our cognition thatallows us to couple our biological selves with the culture. On the evolutionary timeline it― 32 ―

Metaﬁction: An Introduction on Dramatizing the Boundaries of Social Discourse

has served us by seeking social structures that inform the method and parameters of our
biological dispositions. Likewise, on the cultural timeline, it ensures more immediate
personal survival within societies by mediating our behaviors within our cultural forms. Theline illustrates that the relationship between the biological and cultural spheres occurs
through a cognitive engagement that is genetically predisposed towards certain biases and isin search of cultural meaning.
Cognition is also the medium by which play between our Being (reality) and Fiction(aesthetic) worlds exist. Cognition allows us create art and think about it critically, applying
what we learn to our environments. In this sense we are concerned with the cultural timeline
since ages of natural selection and genetic mutations would be required to have an effect on
the evolutionary timeline. As Robert Scholes goes on to suggest in Metafiction, (1995: 23),[t]he ideas of fiction are those essential qualities which define and characterize it[fiction]...They are aspects of the essence of being human. To the extent that fiction
fills a human need in all cultures, at all times, it is governed by these ideas.

The ideas of fiction represent the localized versions of inherent biological adaptations(essences) to storytelling. They represent the micro adaptations of the literary universals wefind across cultures, certain archetypes, and even tendencies in storytelling.
Here's a quote by Jorge Luis Borges from Borges and I, (1998: 324):
Years ago I tried to free myself from him, and I moved on from the mythologies of theslums and outskirts of the city to games with time and infinity, but those games belong
to Borges now, and I shall have to think of other things.

Here we see various forms of play at work. We can map the literary formalism (formsof fiction) and see how metafiction contains within itself the dialogic function. We will cometo see how metafiction, in its very form and practice, amalgamates poststructuralist
decentering of meaning in texts, with the perseverance of a larger grand-narrative (if not the
grandest), human survival.
The first metafictional element that strikes us is the self-referential nature of the story.
Borges is both the author and the protagonist, that is, the real and the fiction. It is from theawareness of this separation that all metafictions emerge from. The fiction is aware of the― 33 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 31

being and vice versa. They are being played on.
Play is an important concept needed in applying the metafictional framework (Fiction),back onto reality (Being). Borges writes, ‘...but those games belong to Borges now, and I
shall think of other things’ (Borges, 1998: 324). So what exactly is the ‘game’ that Borges(author/protagonist) is referring to? He tells us earlier that they are stories, which are gameswith ‘time and infinity’ (324); changes in his development as a writer from realism tometafictions. Since the story is about the man, Borges (Being), coming to terms with thecelebrity Borges (Fiction), we can see how the ‘man’ created these stories, but for the worldthese stories don't belong to the ‘man,’ but the ‘persona’ (Fiction). ‘I live, I allow myself to
live, so that Borges can spin out his literature, and that literature is my justification’ (324).
And so, since he must ‘think of other things’ (324), Borges is obliged to continue
participating in the game between the ‘I’ and the ‘He’ by writing new fictions that will serve
his persona. He writes, ‘and everything winds up being lost to me, and everything falls into
oblivion, or into the hands of the other man’ (324). Borges demonstrates for us the necessary
cooperative relationship essential in playing the 'game'.
However, the games are much more profound than this. At the surface level, this is play
between the fictional and real Borges. But is it? The real story Borges is the protagonist.
Even the real is maintained within the story. The metaphor of the mirror is essential in
speaking about metafiction, but a house of mirrors is more appropriate. We have the real
Borges who has written a story about a fictional real Borges, who writes to maintain afictional persona, which is reflective of the actual persona of the real Borges.
Moving beyond the textual analysis, we must notice where we fit in the story. Hereinlies the game. Let us consider once more the Borgenian dilemma: we have the physicality ofthe story, a play-text between the author and the persona. But we also have the writer
Borges, who actually penned the story. And since all three of these characters (one real andtwo fictional) share the same name, we, the reader, must decide whether it is the true Borges
speaking to us, or the fictional Borges relating his reflections on his celebrity. We too, thenfind ourselves in a cooperative relationship (not unlike the relationship between Borges andhis persona) with the real Borges. Forced to play his game as he invites us to look into thetwo mirrors he's holding up for us, and think critically about topics such as truth, lies,
reality, storytelling, textual messages, and our relation to it all, and to be creative
participants to the story as we consider the actual celebrity Borges that we all know about
and all the other Borgeses.
― 34 ―

Metaﬁction: An Introduction on Dramatizing the Boundaries of Social Discourse

To quickly demonstrate, the interplay of fiction here, Borges and I (1998), is a play
between the form of fiction and the form of existence: the two fictional Borges. It is also
allegorical in the sense that it questions what it means to be alive and have a place in society.
Are we to serve our selves or our personas? It is also a mythical interplay between the
Borgenian myth and his philosophical inquiry mentioned in the previous paragraph (madepossible through the decentered language of the story). Additionally, beyond the play within
the forms of the story, there is the play with the real existential, which has societal
application by generating discussions in the reader. It is worth mentioning as well that thediscussions that metafiction creates about the structural, formal and philosophical, always
lead back to the existential. At a micro level, these issues are cause for introspective
dialogue within the metafictional reader. At the macro level, they are presented for larger
dialogue and societal engagement and possible change.
The metaphor of the mirror is not only important to metafiction, but also crucial inthinking about metafiction as a tool for change and survival. These metafictional stories are
mirrors in themselves that are also proverbial playgrounds where we gather to play, exercise,and even tryout our critical and creative skills in important ways. Brian Boyd writes in On
the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction (2005: 381):
We see art as a form of cognitive play that appeals to our intense human appetite forthe rich inferences that patterns allow. Art in this broad sense is a human adaptation,
its chief functions being (1) to refine and retune our minds in modes central to humancognition-sight, sound, and sociality—which it can do piecemeal through its capacity
to motivate us to participate again and again in these high intensity workouts; (2) toraise the status of gifted artists; (3) to improve the coordination and cooperation ofcommunities, in our very social species; and (4) to foster creativity on an individual
and social level.

This is the evolutionary (in social and biological senses) function of art. ‘Play is facilitatedby rules and roles, and metafiction operates by exploring fictional rules to discover the role offictions in life. It aims to discover how we each “play” our own realities’ (Waugh, 1984: 35).
Metafiction, contains within it, additional layers of play which provide a more intellectual
participation with the writer and the text, and subsequently a more critical approach to the socialworld. To make a more Marxist point, Terry Eagleton (2003: 35) states:― 35 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 31

Because subjects like literature and art history have no obvious material pay-off, theytend to attract those who look askance at capitalist notions of utility. The idea of doing
something purely for the delight of it has always rattled the grey-bearded guardians of
the state. Sheer pointlessness is a deeply subversive act...art and literature encompass agreat many ideas and experience ...They also raise questions about quality of life in aworld where experience itself seems brittle and degraded....those who deal with art
speak the language of value rather than price.

I would add, that there is nothing pointless about such endeavors. The language ofvalue spreads to all aspects within the spheres of fiction and being when we search formeaning.
Storytelling is in itself a form of pretend play (make-believe play), which is unique tohumans. As Boyd states, ‘[a]nimals love to play...only humans would play simultaneouslywith dinosaurs and ducks or dragons and skeletons’ (Boyd, 2009: 177). We use pretend playand develop stories that more cognitively ensure survival in a different way than more
physical forms of play, they are about ‘mommies and babies, monsters and heroes,
spaceships and unicorns’ (Gottschall, 2012: 33). In other words, they are absurd, deal withreal concerns, and are symbolic of real human character traits and desires. As Gottschallstates, ‘Pretend play is deadly serious fun. Every day, children enter a world where theymust confront dark forces, fleeing and fighting for their lives’ (Gottschall, 2012: 32).
Metafiction, though not operating at such a primordial level (though it often deals with thesesame issues), can and does provide the same sort of preparation for social interaction.
‘Fictions foster cooperation by engaging and attuning our social and moral emotions andvalues, and creativity by enticing us to think beyond the immediate in the way our minds aremost naturally disposed—in terms of social actions’ (Boyd, 2009: 383).
Additionally, children's storytelling, contains another trait that is also characteristicallymetafictional. As Boyd (2009: 177) notes,[c]hildren's social pretend play lacks form as story or drama. It proceeds in fits andstarts; it lacks consistency and direction. Children easily and naturally “break frame,”
stepping outside the action—an utter no-no in modern adult improvisatory theater—tonarrate the story, or to act as codirectors or scriptwriters as they negotiate the next
development. (This phenomenon, incidentally refutes the narratological tradition that― 36 ―

Metaﬁction: An Introduction on Dramatizing the Boundaries of Social Discourse

insists that only narrated and not enacted stories count as narratives.)

Children's play not only utilizes metafictional elements, but also challenges tradition.
In this way metafiction is not only more intellectual, but also intuitional. Though one may
argue that we humans develop our skills to the point that we no longer have to tell disjointed
narratives to each other, I would argue that that isn't necessarily true. We develop our
intellect and skills so that we can become social animals, ensuring our and the species'
survival, but the more complex our capacities become, the more complex situations manifest
around us. It would seem then, that more intuitional approaches, in this case, playful
boundary-blurring stories mirroring the issues of the times (new and reoccurring), would
serve us better.
This brings us back to the shamanistic role of the teller/author. This intuitive
playfulness serves as a preliminary re-envisioning of all the spheres and sub-categories,
which we have talked about. David Richter, in his editorial on Friedrich Nietzsche's On
Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense, in The Critical Tradition (2007: 437/438), tells us:
Language works precisely by depriving the things of the world of their individuality: aword like “leaf” can only stand for each and every leaf, regardless of shape, size andcolor, by becoming a concept deprived of color, shape, and size....These metaphors arein a sense lies, but once they become structured into concepts, built into a frameworkthat expresses the society's understanding of its world, they become truths:
What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, andanthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have beenenhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which
after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions
about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which areworn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures andnow matter only as metal, no longer coins.
...And cultures change, slowly, as this mobile army of metaphors change, as original
thinkers conceive new relationships that later harden into new concepts. (Nietzsche
clearly agrees with Shelley, that the poets are the “unacknowledged legislators ofmankind.”)― 37 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 31

Here we draw the connections between the importance of an intuitive re-imagining ofstructures of fiction and being. We have set the linguistic foundation for not only reimagining meaning, but the notion that meanings are lies in and of themselves. And
therefore, can be decentered and recentered to create new structures and avoid blind
acceptance of metaphors that are doubly lies: as metaphors-in-themselves, and as modern
anachronistic irrelevancies. It seems then, in light of the Nietzschean description of thefictive process of language (and of ‘truth’), the shamanistic tendency of the romancers(authors of forms of fiction), and the cognitive parabolic function of making sense of theworld, that the very epistemological engagement with the world is centered on the creationof ‘fictions’ to impose an ‘order’ onto that which can be then taken to establish meaning andknowledge. This does not mean that there is no truth and that nothing is knowable, as critics
of poststructuralism would argue against poststructuralism, but that by our very creative
abilities to formulate fictions to explain and understand that which we encounter in ourenvironments, we can come to learn a great deal about the world we live in. I contend, thateven the concept of ‘truth’ is a linguistic and fictionalizing attempt to explain the processesof the world as things-in-themselves. By this I mean, assigning fictional patterns (words,
metaphors, plot, etc.) to that which begs articulation. But because our fictional patterns are
not precise, we open ourselves us up to interpretation, and thus meaning is decentered. Since
the term ‘truth’ itself seeks to assign value to that which is merely existent and valueless as
a process, it seems plausible that the greatest ‘truth’ is perhaps, as Nietzsche (2007) argues,‘knowable’ through intuition.
It is up to the creator of cultural artifact to re-imagine these new metaphors and to doso requires an intuitional sense of play that jumbles the old tired structural combinations andpresents a vision for a new approach and outlook towards society. This is the difference
between the Nietzschean 'liberated intellect' and the proverbial lemming, or ‘needy man’who only sees culture as master rather than tool. Metafiction I argue is not only the practicefor the liberated intellect, but also the overt and egoless invitation to intellectual liberation.
Friedrich Nietzsche states in On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense (2007: 458):
That enormous scaffold and framework of concepts to which the needy man clings fordear life is merely a stage plaything for the boldest feats of the liberated intellect; andwhen it smashes and jumbles, and ironically reassembles this framework, pairing what
is most foreign and separating what is closest, it reveals that it has no use for such

― 38 ―

Metaﬁction: An Introduction on Dramatizing the Boundaries of Social Discourse

makeshifts of need and that it will no longer be guided by concepts, but by intuitions.
There is no regular path which leads from these intuitions into the land of ghostly
schemata, the land of abstractions. No word exists for them, man is speechless at theirsight; or else he talks only in a great many forbidden metaphors and unheard-ofphrasings so that by smashing and mocking the old conceptual barriers he might atleast creatively approximate the impression of intuition in its mighty presence.

This mirrors the intuitive stories of children, who smash, jumble, and reassemble theframeworks surrounding their stories and games of play. This is, in a sense, a call for the
return to the intuitive spirit that takes to its heart the simultaneous creative and critical
approach to the world. The criticism of the old and the creative towards the new. And justlike children, who lack the vocabulary necessary for metaphorical construction andexplanation to the playful stories they tell and enact, the liberated intellect, or metafictional
creator, will engage in, as David Richter (2007: 438) summarizes about Nietzsche’s theory‘aesthetic play, harvesting suffering, but experiencing a kind of satisfaction unavailable tothose who live by the “truth” of socially accepted concepts.’
Nietzsche creates for us an evolutionary return to the trust of intuition. An ethics ofunderstanding the necessity of change. A bridge between the biological organism and thesocietal culture (in the biological and social sense of the word). An electrification of
language and the drive within, to utilize language as a tool for survival instead of a force ofrepression, as resilient shamans who understand the fleeting nature of ‘truths’ and thedangers of stagnation.
Language is our medium for understanding ourselves and the world; our relationshipwith and within. It articulates our emotions and forges stronger social bonds. It is themethod of literature. Language is a driving social force and a biological necessity. It is anevolutionary adaptation that has allowed us to come together as a species and connect.
Language is in the best interest of all because it ensures social and biological survival. Ourinvestigation into language begins with an epistemological defining, from which we are able
to build an ethics, that perhaps, will be more useful outside of metafiction in re-imagining
the way groups and societies address problems.
Jacques Derrida's deconstruction theory decenters meaning within signs and structures.
There is enough freeplay inherent in their meanings that we are able to extrapolate various
meanings. Derrida further explains, on the paradoxical concept of centering structures of― 39 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 31

meaning, ‘although it represents coherence itself, the condition of the epistemé as
philosophy or science—is contradictorily coherent. And...coherence in contradiction
expresses the force of a desire’ (Derrida, 2007: 915). This concept of the coherence incontradiction is important because mere coherence is ignorant acceptance without
investigation, what Nietzsche calls, ‘the needy man’ (Nietzsche, 2007: 458). In any aspectof life, this sort of acceptance can have drastic consequences. The value of the decentering
quality of metafiction is in its ability to beg coherence through its contradictions. It allows
for the contradictions to be considered and it revels in the play from which thesecontradictions generate momentary coherence.
Coherence in contradiction provides the ‘both/and’ framework, which is not definitive,
but necessary in acknowledging so as to move forward in our analysis and general outlooksof the world. In other words, contradiction fuels the search for an agreeable meaning. The
contradictory ‘both/and’ framework is one that generates desire. The ‘force of a desire’(Derrida, 2007: 915) that Derrida speaks of, is this: the natural movement of disharmonious
elements to resolve themselves. I argue, this is the case because, we are not content to leave
the world as it is, sequences of random events; the performative thing-in-itself. We
constantly are in search of patterns and coherence. What we get with ‘force of a desire’ isdialogue. Since meaning is perpetually elusive, dialogue is perpetually necessary. And sincedialogue is perpetually in play, there is social interaction, cooperation and participation,
regardless of the adversarial status of the other (since anyone who engages in play
(dialogue) recognizes the need for it and therefore acknowledges the rules by which thegame is to be played).
We've spoken about the decentered nature of metafiction and how it contains thenecessary elements for change. But what is the process from metafiction to social change?
While metafiction may not have direct social results, it possesses qualities that encourageand train us for those results. The principles of decentering and on force of desire arenecessary in an establishing epistemology of language. Through this epistemologicalfoundation, we are able to develop the necessary (and in fact, interdisciplinary) vocabulary
in theorizing on metafiction's social disposition. On decentering, we are able to theorize on
language. On coherence of contradiction, we are able to establish the necessity of dialogue.
And on the force of desire, we arrive at the need to restructure. In other words, question,
discuss, and change. The first two, ‘question’ and ‘discuss’ are inherent in metafiction. The
third is the result of questioning and discussing, the exercise and cooperation in playing― 40 ―

Metaﬁction: An Introduction on Dramatizing the Boundaries of Social Discoursewith metaphor. Patricia Waugh (1984: 41) reminds us:
In literature, then, realism, more than aleatory art, becomes the mode most threatening
to full civilization, and metafiction becomes the mode most conducive to it!. . . The
current 'playfulness' within the novel is certainly not confined merely to literary form
but is part of a broader development in culture which is registered acutely in all
postmodernist art.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his earlier work, likened the nature of language tomathematics, a menacing metaphor, as he would later find out; a structuralist argument thatassumes only orderly rights and wrongs. To construct who we are in the world requires morethan just a mathematical formula. This is to say, that there is no right or wrong answer insolving our social problems. In fact, as Kimberly Bohman-Kalaja points out in Reading
Games (2007: 17), ‘[e]thically speaking, in such a model there is a reward or punishment
for the ability to conform, to the rules of an equation’. A mathematical paradigm would
mean an ethics of stagnation and blind acceptance of the social structure.
Wittgenstein comes to explain in Philosophical Investigations (2009), regarding what agame is, ‘if you look at them (various games; my clarification), you won't see somethingthat is common to all, but similarities, affinities, and a whole series of them at that’(Wittgenstein, 2009: 36e). He mentions board-games, card-games, and ball-games. There
are features of these games that are similar, but no one game features them all. For instance,
if we were to say that all games are entertaining, then Wittgenstein asks us to compare chesswith naughts and crosses. Naughts and crosses are often performed out of boredom, but
perhaps chess and baseball are similar in their entertaining quality. Wittgenstein asks us toconsider winning and losing. Perhaps they exist in chess, baseball and blackjack, but what
about, as he points out, ‘when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again’(Wittgenstein, 2009: 36e). And much like the lonesome child throwing a ball against thewall, the card-game solitaire does not engage others in competition. And so in games, much
like in language, ‘we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping andcrisscrossing’ (Wittgenstein, 2009: 36e): a paradigm that is in itself elusive, but nonethelessprovides the necessary metaphor for language, art, and reality. It allows for the continued
play between categories and spheres. But there is perhaps one aspect that is common to all,as put fourth by Johan Huizinga (1955) and summarized succinctly by Kimberly Boham― 41 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 31

Kajala (2007: 14), ‘Play is a voluntary activity’. This is an important tenet because it serves
to establish the motivation for change solely within the individual. By its own definition ofvolunteerism for play, it assumes the opposite also exists; that there are many who would
just as well prefer to fester in a social cesspool because they are contented with the illusionof truth.
However, we see in this playful paradigm, not the binary social ethics that reward andpunish within an either/or schemata, as is in the mathematical view of language, but a moreparticipatory social ethic that values discussion, reflection, and investigation. One that takes
the time to consider the overlapping and crisscrossing values and morals that present
themselves in the issues we face in the world, and seeks to arrive at progressive answers. If
language is the medium by which we deal with the social world around us, as I believe it is,then the paradigm shift to play from the mathematical perspective is also a shift from
authoritarianism to dialogism. It is an acceptance of a paradigm that doesn't necessarily takeus to either extreme of a ‘both/and’ schemata, but to a new schemata that incorporates both‘either/or’ and ‘both/and’, as these two critical approaches encompass any number ofpossibilities when combined. Instead of an authoritarian framework, dialogism allows us toinvestigate answers by not outright excluding possibilities. Furthermore, it allows new
answers by dismembering and combining pieces of old answers to create new ones. Throughlanguage, a cooperative and participatory engagement with the social world, we are active
agents in constant dialogue, and as such in constant questioning and investigation of oursocial environment. The importance of adopting this playful view of language is that it gives
us the outlook and momentum to engage the world. It encourages a spirit necessary forcooperative social interaction and philosophical investigation.

5. Conclusion
It is the very language used that ruptures the illusory world of the fiction andcommunicates to the reader that she is observing a work of art that merely represents afictional existence. This fictional play is laden with ideas for consideration by the reader as
she processes questions related to evolving aesthetics of fiction, the narratological elementsof fiction, existential behaviors, and essential philosophical ideas that inform our being. It isthrough this lens that we can apply biological, cognitive and play theories to metafiction andin return apply insights gained from our dialogic exercises with the text to a social― 42 ―

Metaﬁction: An Introduction on Dramatizing the Boundaries of Social Discourse

dialectical change. Furthermore, within our behaviors lie biological and social forms that are
sometimes at odds with each other. Since social evolution occurs more rapidly, we findourselves in constant need for social reevaluation. Metafiction then can be seen as aplayground for progressive thought, a sort of thought-experiment that can be utilized forlarger discussions.
Since we are theorizing upon metafiction as a tool for discussion, and fictions (ingeneral) make use of language as a medium, we must see how language connects us
socially. Kimberly Bohman-Kalaja, in her book Reading Games: An Aesthetics of Play in
Flann O'Brien, Samuel Beckett & Georges Perec (2007), explains how Ludwig Wittgenstein‘is drawn to play and games as metaphors for the human relations established throughlanguage’ (Boham-Kajala: 16).
The nature of metafiction is to blur the boundary between fiction and reality, author andreader. This blurring of boundaries is key to understanding the ways in which metafiction
not only serves as a literary game, but also as creative and or critical social dialogue. Boththe games and dialogues that emerge from metafiction serve purposes outside the immediate
text. It is through the metafictional nature, to play with the fictional illusions of the text andthe realities of the author and reader across planes of time, that the reader realizes he or she
exists in the medium alongside the author and alongside the fiction. Patricia Waugh states in
Metafiction: The Theory and Practice of Self-conscious Fiction (1984: 34/35),...it can be argued not only that literary fiction is a form of play (if a very sophisticatedform) but that play is an important and necessary aspect of human society. . . .
metafiction sets out to make this explicit: that play is a relatively autonomous activity
but has a definite value in the real world.

Inherent in the genre, is a self-referential tendency to acknowledge the other side of theboundary. This is the use of metafiction, to stimulate the parabolic mind into contemplating
our behaviors and discourses. And because of this elusive nature of our meanings,
metafiction maintains a dialogic nature that mirrors any prevailing cultural pattern into its
fictional realization.

― 43 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 31

Bibliography(Cited, Referenced, or Informative)
BERRY, R.M. (2012). Metafiction. In BRAY, J. amd GIBBONS, A. and MCHALE, B. (eds.). The
routledge companion to experimental literature. London: Routledge.
BOHMAN-KAJALA, K. (2007). Reading games: an aesthetics of play in flann o'brien, samuel beckett& georges perec. USA: Dalkey Archive Press.
BORGES, J. L. (1998). Collected fictions. Trans. Andrew Hurley. New York: Penguin Books.
BOYD, B. (2009). On the origin of stories: evolution, cognition, and fiction. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
CARROLL, J. (1995). Evolution and literary theory. Columbia: U of Missouri P.
CERVANTES, M. (2003). Don quixote. London: Penguin Books.
CHAUCER, G. (2003). The canterbury tales. London: Penguin Books.
CURRIE, M. (1995) Introduction. In CURRIE, M. (ed.) Metafiction. London: Longman Group
Limited.
DERRIDA, J. (2007). Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In RICHTER,
D. (ed). The critical tradition: classic texts and contemporary trends. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin.
EAGLETON, T. (2003). After theory. London: Penguin Books.
FAIRCLOUGH, N. (2001). The dialectics of discourse. Textus, vol XIV, no. 2, pp. 231-242.
FAIRCLOUGH, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: textual analysis for social research, London,
Routledge.
GADAMER, H.-G. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics, LINGE, D. E. (ed.), Berkeley: London,
University of California Press.
GASS, W. H. (1978). Fiction and the figures of life. David R. Godine Pub.
GOTTSCHALL, J. (2012). The storytelling animal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
HOLQUIST, M. (ed.) (1996). The dialogic imagination: four essays by mikhail bakhtin. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
HOPPER, K. (2009). Flann o'brien: a portrait of the artist as a young post-modernist. 2nd ed. Ireland:
Cork University Press.
HUIZINGA, J. (1955). Homo ludens: a study of the play element in culture. Boston: The Beacon
Press.
HUTCHEON, L. (1980; 2013). Narcissistic narrative: the metafictional paradox. Waterloo: Wilfrid
Laurier University Press.
MACK, M. (2012). How literature changes the way we think. London: Continuum International.
MARX, K. (1887). Capital: a critique of political economy; volume 1, book 1, the process of
production of capital. Moscow: Progress Publishers. [Electronic], Available: https://www.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf.
NAOUR, P. (2009). E.o. wilson and b.f. skinner: a dialogue between sociobiology and radical behaviorism,
New York: Springer.
NIETZSCH, F. (2007). On truth and lie in an extra-moral sense. In RICHTER, D. (ed.) The critical― 44 ―

Metaﬁction: An Introduction on Dramatizing the Boundaries of Social Discourse

tradition: classic texts and contemporary trends. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
O’BRIEN, F. (2007). The third policeman. In The complete novels. New York: Alfred A Knopf.
O’BRIEN, T. (1990). The things they carried. New York: Broadway Books.
RICHTER, D. (ed.) (2007). The critical tradition: classic texts and contemporary trends. 3rd ed.
Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
RICHTER, D. (ed.) (2007). Friedrich Nietzsche 1844-1900. In RICHTER, D. (ed.) The criticaltradition: classic texts and contemporary trends. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
SCHOLES, R. (1979). Fabulation and metafiction. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
SCHOLES, R. (1995) Metafiction. In CURRIE, M. (ed.) Metafiction. London: Longman Group
Limited.
SPARK, M. (1994). The comforters. New York: New Directions.
STERNE, L. (2003). The life and opinions of tristram shandy, gentleman. London: Penguin Books.
SUGIYAMA, M. S. (2010). Cultural variation is part of human nature: literary universals, contextsensitivity, and “Shakespeare in the bush”. In BOYD, B. and CARROLL, J. and GOTSCHALL,
J. (eds.). Evolution, literature and film: a reader. New York: Columbia University Press.
TURNER, M. (1996) The literary mind: the origin of thought and language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
TURNER, M. and FAUCONNIER, G. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive science 22(2). p.133-187.
TURNER, M. (2001). Cognitive dimensions of social science: the way we think about politics,
economics, law, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
TURNER, M. and Fauconnier, G. (2002). The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s
hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
WAUGH, P. (1984). Metafiction: the theory and practice of self-conscious fiction. London:
Routeledge.
WITTGENSTEIN, L. (2009). Philosophical investigations. 4th ed by P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim
Schulte. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
ZUNSHINE, L. (2010) a. Introduction: What is Cognitive Cultural Studies?. In ZUNSHINE, L. (ed.)
Introduction to cognitive cultural studies. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
ZUNSHINE, L. (2010) b. Lying Bodies of the Enlightenment: Theory of Mind and Cultural
Historicism. In ZUNSHINE, L. (ed.) Introduction to cognitive cultural studies. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press.

― 45 ―