Ok so I know this post is really random but I’ve wanted to post it for a week or so but my internet hasn’t been working. Meta-fiction is a literary device that is self-consciously aware that it is fiction. Like presentational plays where it doesn’t let the audience forget they are seeing a play, metafiction doesn’t let its readers forget it is reading a book.
A novel where the narrator intentionally or accidentally exposes him or herself as an author creating the story being read, a novel wherein the author (not merely the narrator) is a character (like Life of Pi), and a story that anticipates the reader's reaction to the story are general examples of metafiction.
Some literary examples of this are Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five. Billy Pilgrim, the novel's protagonist, travels between periods of his life, unable to control which period he lands in. As a result, the narrative is not chronological or linear. Instead, it jumps back and forth in time and place. Another example is Series of Unfortunate Events in which the author is aware that he is writing a story/biography and he ends up being a character in the books. The Great Gatsby is similar in that he tells the story of life, going back to other stories in order to explain the next event. A recent movie on metafiction is Stranger Than Fiction in which the character is aware that he is fiction.
My favorite example is Jazz by Toni Morrison. During the book readers assume that the narrator is a third party who is not part of the story. Then at the end you realize that the narrator is actually the book itself. The book knows it’s a book!
I really want to know your thoughts on this subject
(Kelley Volosin)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think the concept is rather interesting. I think that it acts as a good warrant by being able to interact with the reader of the book. However, at the same time, can't it also be an ineffective warrant? As Kelley said, the author predicts how the reader is going to react. Isn't there the large possibility that the reader does not react in accordance to the author's prediction? In that case, I'm assuming that the author somehow makes sure that the reaction will be extremely common or tries to come up with a way that the reactions are very similar.
Just as Mary said, this method of writing is establishing some sort of warrant with the audience. I remember a previous post that I'd like to cite. I forget who wrote it, but it was about a charity trying to raise money. A dog was brought up on stage, and the man said, "This is *insert dog's name here*. We are using him to strike your sympathy." Th audience is therefore aware of the propaganda-like technique being employed. Thus, the people are fooled into thinking that the salesman wouldn't have the heart to lie to them!
Similarly, metafiction sort of follows similar guidelines. Since the narrator is making sure to bring your attention to fictional aspects of the book, the reader begins to believe that they can trust what they are being told. I guess you could say that some psychology is involved.
(Sam Maliha)
This practice is often known as "breaking the fourth wall", and is employed in many dramas, books, comics, and other sorts of fiction. The fourth wall is that invisible boundary standing between the audience and the actual story and often includes suspension of disbelief as part of it. Breaking the fourth wall is an interesting technique that mixes fiction and reality and almost allows the audience to become part of the story. When we were discussing "Six Characters in Search of an Author" by Pirandello, I remember that we (the audience) viewed fictitious characters by stepping out of the frame or box the story was occurring in. But breaking the fourth wall allows characters to step out of their little "box" and interact with the audience.
One notable example is from Shakespeare. In A Midsummer Night's Dream, Puck at one point suggests to the audience that they pretend the entire play they had just seen was a dream, if they disliked the play.
Post a Comment