Kumar 1

Karan Kumar

Prof. Hyesu Park

Why The Humanities Matter? (Research Methods in LCS)

23 August 2015

‘Subjective Realities & Literal Literature’: Understanding The Humanities Through Nouveau-Non-Fictional Enterprises

At the crossroads of physical reality and an imagined, temporally & spatially unperturbed reality lies the category of nonfiction literature. Over the years, the credibility, the method of delivery, and other elements of nonfiction literature have been contested on various grounds. In an attempt to understand the fictional universe of nonfiction literature, as well as create a base to further study the cognitive effects and affects of the same, this paper aims to study three texts that are embodiments of three distinct styles of nonfictional narrative. One, a compilation of letters situated in the 1940s and 50s, exchanged between V.S. Naipaul and his family; the second, a memoir of an author – Joan Didion, in the form of new journalism, which recounts in a nonfictional manner, the fictional dilemmas of her late husband; finally, the third, another exchange of letters, however, based on ideas of insurgency and strewn with multiple perspectives on acts societally understood as ‘illegal’. It can be said, at the onset, that nonfictional narratives are diverse fields in which the mind is allowed to wander, yet still stay restricted within the space. These texts will serve to primarily create a reference point through which theoretical bases on narrative, representation, identity, and writing styles will intercept the multiple layers within the texts and bring about a roughly defined idea of the relationship between the humanities, the human, and nonfiction literature. In an exploration of this, and other concepts associated and intermittent, the paper aims to resolve one pertinent question on the ability of nonfictional literature to manifest in the minds of readers as fictional, while resting on the thesis that nonfictional literature is a means to creatively and explicitly express the real world that its writers and readers inhabit. It is not a form that is unchanging in the temporal sense, rather, one that moulds itself to creating an understanding of the current world we inhabit through the lens of a world that did exist. Keywords: Narrative, Non-Fiction, Literature, Discourse, Humanities, Humanist, Ideology, Appropriation, Individual, Community, Culture, Representation, Text, Context, Creative, Fiction, Journalism, Nature, Author, Reader, Narrator, Self, Identity, Conformity

There are multiple narratives in this world, and a roaring sea of possible means in

which they can be expressed. It is this vast possibility that has segmented and categorised the

act of writing into those that represent tangible narratives as nonfictional versus those that

represent merely cognizable narratives as fictional. Tangible narratives are those that can be

Kumar 2

corroborated through historical fact, memory, and sensory perception. On the contrary,

cognizable narratives are those that are told and understood with the reader being the tipping

point of interpretation, and the point of convergence of the author, the narrator, and the text –

these lack any individual memory-based understandings, but work on the premise that every

reader possesses shared relatable experiences that require a deeper cognitive ability to fully

interpret.

This paper aims to explore the nouveau non-fictional literary enterprises of memoirs

and letter compilations as the aforementioned ‘tangible narratives’ in an effort to highlight

two very pertinent issues (and hopefully resolve them). The first being the question that

probes into the affective consequences, and aesthetic nature of nonfictional literature that is

creatively expressed; the second, and natural logical corollary – is the question of how these

narrative consequences and judgements could inscribe, signify (or even resignify), the

importance of the study of Humanities in the modern context to further the reader’s

understanding of the real and nonfictional world that he/she inhabits.

However, these tangible narratives, as I understand them, are merely representations

of memory, and expressions of experiences that once were, that have influenced the current

state of the individual that is creating this narrative. This individual is the author. To resist

confusion, and for the sake of convenience – the author, as a creator of the narrative shall

henceforth be referred to as the ‘writer’, and the term author shall be used as reference to

analyse what he or she has written. As the creator of this narrative, the writer possesses the

ability to determine the manners in which the text shall be authored. Whether it is form,

content, or literary tools – the author’s identity (though sometimes elusive) is one that must be

understood to be able to create an analytical perspective on the text. This identity – is a

function of various social, academic, and experiential factors that have contributed to the

formation of the author, and determine the nature of writing that the writer shall indulge in.

Kumar 3

To further understand this identity, it is necessary for the reader/critic to delve into the social

and cultural context of the author while attempting to locate the origins of the content that the

writer produces within the text. To slightly digress from the issue, and to answer

(preliminarily) the question of why the humanities matter, the authorial identity will not be

recognised or understood, unless and until the humanist framework of analysis of the

individual is adopted, and that is the first step towards rationalising the need for the

humanities in all kinds of studies.

Shifting from authorial identity to authorial intent, it is important to recognise the

arbitrariness of the author and the writer that depends entirely on the larger schema of

categorisation of the narrative within the text. If the writer chooses to create a fictional text,

then the author must be understood as a careful, considerate, and separate (yet still

intertwined) aspect of the text; whereas, the nonfictional writer is one that uses his/her true

experiences to author a work that might resonate with the identity of the writer. It is through

the discernment of the nature of the writer and the influential capacity of the author that one

may postulate that the nonfictional universe of literature rests on the fact that it is simply a

negation of fiction (Rigby 2006:24). It is in this negation that the futility of analysis of

nonfictional literary enterprises lies. We often turn to nonfictional literature when we seek

historical, biographical, or factual information, and in doing so; we disallow nonfictional

literature’s inclusion of elements of fictionality1.

Personally, the study of nonfictional literature is something that I feel could provide a

deeper insight into the workings of society, its agents, and its members. The writer provides

the reader with a world that isn’t very far removed from the real, yet still exists in a flux

between the real and the imagined. In analysing the fictitious or factual nature of the text (by

1 Fictionality here, is the concept proposed by Richardson (2011), which determines the eccentricity of the narrative, and it’s deviation from the ‘real’.

Kumar 4

understanding the nonficition/fiction distinction), various other facets of study emerge – and

that is why – through this study, the importance of the Humanities will present itself.

Before this exploration begins however, it is necessary to understand the nature of

fiction, to be able to form a correlated negation of the same vis. nonfiction. It is like an act

somewhat akin to tasting sweet, to be able to differentiate it from the bitter. Fiction, or

fictional literature is a kind of genre based narrative that goes beyond the real world, as the

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it; it is – “[S]omething invented by the imagination or

feigned; specifically: an invented story” (“Fiction”).

The nature of fiction is in essence its ability to play on memories of individuals and

shape perspectives, rather than provide another one (Heyne 2001:330). It is not only an

invention of a story, but an invention of a space, a time, and an alternative reality – which can

be interpreted differently, but exercises a similar impact on every reader. We must understand

the seemingly simple, yet complex world of differentiation between fiction and nonfiction.

Brian Richardson very aptly states (of the works of James Joyce):

“When Joyce states in a novel that Leopold Bloom lived at 7 Eccles Street in Dublin

on June 16, 1904, he is performing a different kind of illocutionary act[2] (“make-

believe”) than if he had made the identical statement in a work of nonfiction.” (2011:

75)

This statement, seemingly factual, representative of what we term as the “address” of

Mr. Bloom, is in fact fictional, it is an invented address, of a fictitious entity named Leopold

Bloom; however, this statement, if considered to be representative of a real person, in Dublin,

who lived on Eccles Street – it would be a nonfictional statement. It is interesting to note, that

2“An illocutionary act is a complete speech act, made in a typical utterance, that consists of the delivery of the propositional content of the utterance (including references and a predicate) and a particular illocutionary force, whereby the speaker – asserts, suggests, demands, promises, or vows” (Searle & Vanderveken 1985)

Kumar 5

the terrain of the nonfictional universe is exactly the same as the one we physically inhabit,

whereas, the topography of a fictional landscape, is based on the universe we inhabit, but

created and improved upon through language (Heyne 2001:323).

The binary – fiction/nonfiction, in turn works on various levels to create an

experience for the reader and uses a variety of literary tools (as determined by the writer) to

create that experience. However, if one were to consider the statement made by Richardson

(printed afore), another question arises, inquiring into the reasons for the categorisation of

literature into either the domain of fiction, or nonfiction. The process of slotting these grains

of literature into siloes can be very easily understood from the theoretical perspective: to state

very simply, some state that the categorisation is a convenience to the publishers, while

others say that the readerly qualities of the text depend on the way the story is told by the

writer (Class Notes). In addition, this invention, is most often regarded so (as an invention)

due to its categorisation as fictional literature. The writer is most often never considered in

the process of assigning a literary genre to a text, as the task is primarily based on the notions

of the publisher.

In analysing various works for the purpose of this essay, it occurred to me that the act

of categorisation is an act committed after the fact. Therefore, it is imperative to understand

the process of creation of the literature, to witness its intentional categorisation by the writer

of the text. Works of fiction are written with the aim of soliciting responses and not

imprinting perspectives through deception, and works of nonfiction are written to mime the

real and ‘tell’ it (White 1980:5).

If one were to consider this aspect of ‘mimicking’ the real, to tell it – as an aspect of

nonfictionality, then the distinction between fictional synthesis, and nonfictional mimesis

might stand as one of the most riveting points within the argument. If, for example, a writer

authors a text that is primarily a recounting of the world around him/her, but this text is a

Kumar 6

representation of the mind of the author unlike most other nonfictional (read: traditional

nonfictional) texts (Walsh 2003:114). Is this not the synthesis itself, of the mimetic and the

synthetic? These blurred spaces of nonfiction and fictional intercourse are the spaces that can

represent the most interesting aspects of literature, which can be further understood through

an application of the humanities. Take for instance, the ability of this blurred space to reveal

to the reader, various facets of the writer’s life, and the processes of thought that might or

might not have affected the process of writing. In understanding the ways in which those

thoughts manifest in the text the reader can also gauge the author’s literary ability – which in

turn requires knowledge of literary theory, form, and literature in itself. To further seek

answers from the text itself necessitates the reader’s comprehension of culture, time, and

history – and it is for this reason that the humanities reveal their importance so vividly

through creative nonfictional enterprises, and not solely in fictional works of creative writing.

Thus, through an analysis of the distinctions and similarities between fiction and nonfiction,

works of creative nonfiction, and their interpretation – the reader not only creates an

experience of his/her own, but learns to apply it to the world that we inhabit, through spaces

that might only traditionally be termed as ‘real’. However, these spaces, in recent times have

been defined by their inherent fictionality – a concept devised by Dorrit Cohn, in Signposts of

Fictionality that seeks to understand the idea of elements of fictional writing and literary

tools of fiction, that work at a higher level of universal fictionality, within various texts, to

show that this fictionality need not exist solely in fictional works (1990).

To further understand, and simplify the complex notion of ‘fictionality, within

nonfiction, that serves to represent the undermining of the idea that tools of fiction, through

fictionality in nonfiction, can result in the creation of an understanding of the world spatially,

temporally, as well as contextually’ the first text that this paper shall analyse is the

compilation of letters exchanged between V.S. Naipaul and his family, while Naipaul was

Kumar 7

admitted at Oxford University, London. ‘Letters between a Father and Son’ is a riveting tale

that, even in its most mundane nonfictional, almost autobiographical form – creates a space

for the reader to fictionally (as defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary) experience

events and times that they were not necessarily a part of. Firstly, the writer’s positioning of

the letters, and (in this case) the exclusion and inclusion of some letters by the Editor allow

for the reader to gain a particular chronological understanding of V.S. Naipaul’s life, as well

as his family’s. Secondly, and more so concurrently the letters allow the reader to gain some

cultural context of the time, and create a picture of a space that they do not inhabit –

specifically, the London of the 1940s and 50s. It is this experience of creating a fictional

understanding through nonfiction that will assist in simplifying the rather complex statement

written a few lines above.

To slightly tangentiate from the issue of nonfiction and its implicative nature in

understanding the world, it is important to consider the ideas of justice and identities.

Compiling letters, which are personal exchanges between two individuals, and further

publishing these exchanges for the entire world to read – is somewhat indicative of a loss of

privacy. While it is important to recognise that these letters, however arranged or compiled

are representative of an experience of literature – the question of intent brings to light

pressing issues of ethicality. The flesh-and-blood Naipaul, would not have intended these

letters to have been compiled and arranged for their further publication, however, the editor –

through various liberties has arranged and compiled specific letters to provide readers with an

experience of a temporal space that they would not have received otherwise. But, is it the

question of providing the ‘fictional experience’ of a nonfictional world that raises red flags,

or is it the complete revealing of the identity of the author through his/her personal

expressions?

Kumar 8

This loss of privacy reveals the true identity of the author, and at the same time, has

ethical consequences that lead us to create judgements of the implied and historical “I” within

the text (Class Notes, Phelan 2011:131). Referencing this phenomenon of literature to

humanist ideas is a further assertion to how nonfictional literature can be a wonderful mode

to analyse the ways in which varied expressions of the real, turn into cognitive perceptions of

an individual, and sometimes even, a society.

The degree of fictionality determines the nature of the text; albeit, even the use of real

world scenarios could be fictional, it is just the means of expression that matter. The primary

text by Naipaul is interesting mainly because it allows readers to possess that ability to

interpret the nature of the implied author in the text, as well as understand the historical, and

narrating author within/outside of it, as James Phelan very eloquently states – “Rhetorical

theory’s interest not in the author’s private intentions but rather in his or her public

textuali[s]ed intentions entails locating authorial agency in the implied rather than the actual

author.” (2011:127). One very significant letter that could highlight both the arguments from

this paragraph is:

“VSN TO HOME University College,

Oxford. August 20, 1951

Dear Everybody, As you probably know by now, I have spent some time in hospital. A rather

pleasant two weeks in fact, down with that shameful disease – appendicitis. Sophistication seems to breed it! For the second time since I have been in this country I have had my asthma – it came on with the appendicitis and gave me a bit of trouble, for coughing with a cut in your stomach is decidedly painful.

The doctor gave me an injection of adrenaline for the asthma attacks and it worked wonderfully. Within five minutes I was able to breathe reasonably well.

But I really enjoyed the stay, especially as it was free. My holiday in France, however, has had to be abandoned and I am naturally disappointed.

I am staying with Mamee – perhaps for a week and then, if strength permits, I shall travel about England, as far as money permits. The illness has had another bad effect. You see, for the three weeks that preceded it, I wrote everyday, and I had really

Kumar 9

found myself going. Yesterday I tried to continue where I left off but it was no use. That, more than anything else, distresses me.

I am glad that joke about the Manchester Guardian appeared; but the people haven’t sent me five shillings! They have sent nothing as a matter of fact.

I am really quite well now and there is no need to worry. No more news I am afraid; I am not in the mood to write really. When I am I

shall probably dispatch a longer letter. I was 19 on holiday. And – Oh! I feel so old.

Love to everyone – Vido. Have you received the photographs yet? Send me a cutting of the M. Guardian joke please.” (Naipaul 1999:160,61) As I have mentioned earlier, nonfiction is always misconceived as a dry, and rigid

form of literature, however – it is evident through Donna Rigby’s discourse on narrative and

creative nonfiction, that this form of literature does not need to be confined to a mere

restatement of the facts. Creative nonfiction is a manner in which nonfictional literature

stands as the structure where the ideas of imagination, narrative, and spatio-temporal

specificity converge to provide mental and emotional fodder to the readers of the text. It is an

expression of the real, evocative, and still grounded in fact. When V.S. Naipaul decided to

send a letter to his parents about his creative endeavours, he created a literary piece that has

immense impact on its readers, just as will be discussed in the next section – the following

excerpt from one of his letters, is what could be considered a version of creative nonfiction,

that has all the necessary implications:

“ […]Beautiful words force themselves on you in this delightful climate. Listen to this. Read it aloud. I was trying to capture the sound of a racing train:

…noisy trains clangorously clattering towards nothing.”

It is important to recognise here, the use of tools such as imagery, and sensory perception

through the text – he is engaging with his reader (intended to be his father), and

constructing/paving the way forward in terms of creating a stance on his rather charged

literary creation. Tools just as the ones he uses above, are primarily part of fictional literature

or poetry, because it requires the reader’s mind to imagine certain things, but even then,

Kumar 10

nonfictional literature, just as fictional literature does, uses images and scenes and sensations

from a possible shared experience across the spectrum of readers to bring forth images that

are in a way more impactful than the images created through fiction, mostly because we

know those images to be untrue.

“I don’t care what anyone says, that is a really excellent line. Again, describing Oxford: this elephant’s cemetery where the cracked and the decrepit philosophies crack conglomerately in death. Really fine, don’t you think? You can see for yourself how vastly my poetry has improved. I have developed a greater feeling for words and can now truly appreciate Mulk Raj Anand’s opening sentence of the Liar: Labhu, the old shikari of my village, was a born liar. Few people really get that feeling for words. But enough of this.”

The temporality of such images, is another feature of nonfictional literature that might trump

its creative abilities over those of fictional literature. An image that is created, of the real

world, does not stay and linger as long as others created of an imagined cognizable world.

This might seem to be a disadvantage, but what this does is only further highlight the way in

which a mind, just like the readers’ works. Fleeting thoughts, random images, and a chain of

processes that try and rationalise the reality inhabited by him/her/us.

“I met Ruth; and I doubt whether I have come across a more stupid, arrogant, shrewish, self-pitying woman in all my limited experience. I went to see her for three hours. It was hell. I can hardly picture myself living with her and enjoying it. She seems to have a great hatred for the clan. I wont be surprised if Capo R.’s churlish behaviour has not been due in part to her.” (Naipaul 1999:43)

Nonfictional texts, have a strange strength to evoke multiple emotions, images, and

thoughts in the reader’s minds, and it is this strength that allows for nonfictional literature

versus fictional literature to better explain and rationalise the importance of the humanities in

the modern context. Evoking thoughts, asking questions, and furthering insight into things

that one might not know about entirely, those are the saliences of nonfictional literature’s

ability to evoke.

Kumar 11

To discuss this evocativeness of the text, one may consider the second primary text

for analysis – Joan Didion’s ‘The Year of Magical Thinking’. A memoir, and a revolution in

the form of new-journalistic enterprise, Didion’s text is a recounting of her process of coping

with the fact that her husband was no more. Every page, right from start to end is fraught

with emotional baggage, retroactive, and retrospective contemplation about her experience in

an effort to reconstruct her memories of the same – all very carefully placed, resonating with

the nuances of a personalised, experiential reporting of events. In terms of the literary

categorisation, both are works of nonfiction, expressed as a distant cousin of the personal

essay, once removed from the autobiographical novel. Her work is so layered with the

intricacies of the human condition, that it turns profound and prophetic in some ways.

The text, through its efforts to revisit the past, is what makes the narrative so engaging

and relatable to the readers. Fields of the humanities, look mostly at memory, its persistence

and impermanence, and through that, they try to explain the human condition – which is what

is captured in the most eloquent manner in The Year of Magical Thinking. Personally, The

Year of Magical Thinking is embodied in this one quote that seems nonfictional, but uses so

many facets of fictional literature – that the entire essence of this paper may even be

highlighted in the following:

“We are not idealized wild things. We are imperfect mortal beings, aware of that

mortality even as we push it away, failed by our very complication, so wired that

when we mourn our losses we also mourn, for better or for worse, ourselves. As we

were. As we are no longer. As we will one day not be at all.” (2005:265/66)

To make sense of this statement through literary as well as narrative analysis, one

could use the following table, which diagrammatically represents the nature of discourse, and

the levels of interpretation and analysis required to comprehend its inherent fictionality.

Kumar 12

At the onset, it is imperative to decipher the ideology, and meaning in the discourse –

in this case, it would be the implicit nature of grief and the realisation of mortality, followed

by the overtake of a sense of pity. Post this realisation, the analysis must take into its wings

the literariness of the text, the language, the tools, the metaphors, the narratology, and the

effects of the same. Once these are understood, as a reader – it is natural to seek context in

the work (either in isolation, or considered as a part of a whole); through which,

comprehension commences. Nevertheless, one very simple thing to understand, is that only

upon the actual and complete comprehension of the text, will the reader realise the inherent

fictionality of the text – thereby determining its fictional or nonfictional nature.

This inherency in the nature of fictionality is what lends to the argument that the text,

is a separate world even in its nonfictional state. It is not an alternative world, but an

alternative perspective to the world that we inhabit (White 1980:10). This perspective is

something that relies on the tools of fictional literature to creatively express the real world

that both the writer and the reader inhabit. Notwithstanding the fact that the author then

becomes a part of this isolated world within the text, the author can be understood through

the contexts created within the writer’s world. It is here, that a very significant issue must be

Comprehension  

Fictionality  

Context  

Discourse  

Kumar 13

resolved, of the interpretation of the text during the instance of writing, and the instance of

reading.

At the instance of writing (hence referred to as IoW), the historical context, the social

formation, and the thematic concern can be identified via the study of the humanities;

however, at the instance of reading (hence referred to as IoR), the aforementioned contexts

can only be identified through the text’s application onto the humanistic understanding of the

setting that the IoW took place within (Nielsen 2015). The idea that the world of the text is

itself created, might indicate the fictionality of the text – albeit, the only way to make the

aesthetic judgement, would be to note the manner in which the “reader has been invited to

conceive of the narrative” (Ibid). At the IoR, the author’s intent will be the decisive factor in

analysing the fictional, or nonfictional nature of the text even though it might be categorised

otherwise (Phelan 2011:132-135). It is upon comprehending the text that as the reader, one

will realise that it is not the writer that can be resonated with, but in actuality – the character,

and through that the implied author. Joan Didion manages to subvert the reader’s attention to

the event of her husband’s death – and if careful attention is paid to the text, one of the most

significant issues that might lead to the creation of an ethical judgement of the implied

Didion, as well as the flesh & blood Didion, would be the lack of regard that she has for her

daughter, whose condition worsens in the hospital. Nonetheless, the ethical judgement will

probably be in excess towards the real, historical, flesh-and-blood Didion than towards the

implied Didion, notwithstanding the fact that sans the questioning of Didion’s daughter’s role

in the novel, and while being cautious of the emotive affective qualities of the text – one

cannot create this ethical judgement. The way the judgement is created, still rests in the act of

reading, and how invested or otherwise the reader is in either the implied/narrating Didion

and/or the flesh & blood Didion.

Kumar 14

But, in times of crisis such as the loss of a loved one, Didion’s book raises the

pertinent question of primacy of the situation. It is interesting to note (and on a rather sad

note), that during the publication of The Year of Magical Thinking, Didion’s daughter,

Quintana passed away as well. In possibly trying to still rationalise her husband’s demise –

Didion could have lost focus on her daughter, and that could be assumed to be the reason

Quintana bears negligible mention in the memoir (Gross 2005). It is exactly this analysis of

the authorial intent that requires prior knowledge of context, socially, culturally, and

personally.

While context is necessary for interpretation of the missing links within the text, and

to bridge the gaps between the writer and the reader, nonfictional literature almost always

falls short of providing the entire picture. Even so, it is the intent of the author that can

‘manipulate, reframe, and recreate’ a representation of reality, which is why the writing of

nonfiction requires a creative edge. What this indicates, is that in terms of nonfictional

literature as literally a representative of the real world, it is still a subjective approach to the

space we i.e. the author, writer, and reader inhabit together. Therefore, fictional literature in

comparison – might provide a better basis for contextualisation on a larger scale than will

nonfiction. It is at this juncture that one may realise the nuances involved in the acts of

creation/recreation of creative nonfiction. Some of the prose from Didion’s memoir, which is

supposed to be nonfictional, is highly fictional in nature. Didion, as the writer chose to use

these methods of literary representation to engage with her readers because of the fact that the

nonfictional creative work, as is evident from the previous instances/analogies – has more

impact than a fictional work that plays mainly on the imaginative ability of the reader.

Fiction and nonfiction are rather tricky, and sticky categories of literature that allow

and disallow a variety of things. But, there exist these blurred spaces between fictional and

nonfictional literature that represent, with a sense of élan, the bridging of the gap between the

Kumar 15

need to understand the fiction/nonfiction distinction and reconciling the importance of the

humanities. Fiction and nonfiction, as genres of literature have manifested in these spaces as

the current state of development of literature – however, we would never understand this

development of literature had it not been for the study of literature through the humanities.

Upon learning of literary theory and history, the humanities, as always, led the thinkers of the

time to raise even more questions; bringing them to interrogate the stances of the author and

the reader in literature, as well as all the intricate intermediaries of said literature. It is this

analysis of the human elements within the fields of fiction and nonfiction that further bring to

the fore the ideas of authorial intent, which can only be recognised upon understanding the

socio-politico-cultural and historical contexts of the writer and then through

methodologically inquiring into the ways in which language is employed to hone the creation

of these well defined or blurred spaces. In something that seems like an unbounded journey

of discovery, it is important to recognise an end, and that is where these blurred spaces of

fiction and nonfiction, explaining each other as the negation of another, expressing shared

experiences and memories in a variety of manners, analysed through tools of the humanities

begin to (in large painted, bold, capital, underlined red letters) show us how the humanities

matter. Sans the creation of the spaces between fiction and nonfiction, the humanities would

have no place to develop, and that, is impossibility in the modern world of exploration and

constant discovery.

Kumar 16

Works Cited

1. Carrard, Philippe. “Picturing Minds: Biography and the Representation of Consciousness.” Narrative Oct 5.3 (1997): 287-305. JSTOR. Web. 2 Sept. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20107125>.

2. Class Notes. Park, Hyesu. “Why The Humanities Matter?” Semsester-1. 2015. 3. Cohn, Dorrit. “Signposts of Fictionality: A Narratological Perspective.” Poetics

Today Winter 11.4 (1990): 775-804. JSTOR. Web. 28 Aug. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1773077>.

4. Cohn, Dorrit. “Fictional versus Historical Lives: Borderlines and Borderline Cases.” The Journal of Narrative Technique Winter 19.1 (1989): 3-24. JSTOR. Web. 29 Aug. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/30225232>.

5. Didion, Joan. The Year of Magical Thinking. New York: A.A. Knopf, 2005. Print. 6. "Fiction." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 26 Aug. 2015.

<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiction>. 7. "Freddy Perlman." The Anarchist Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Sept. 2015.

<http://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/fredy-perlman>. 8. Gross, Terry. "Joan Didion, Writing a Story After an Ending." NPR. NPR, 13 Oct.

2005. Web. 3 Sept. 2015. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4956088>.

9. Hart, Curtis W. "Creative Nonfiction: Narrative and Revelation." Journal of Religion and Health 48.2 (2009): 217-23. JSTOR. Web. 13 Aug. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20685219>.

10. Heyne, Eric. "Where Fiction Meets Nonfiction: Mapping a Rough Terrain." Narrative 9.3 (2001): 322-33. JSTOR. Web. 13 Aug. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20107261>.

11. Is Nonfiction Literature? Perf. Colum McCann, Philip Gourevitch, Norbert Gstrein, and Antje Rávic Strubel. YouTube. PEN America, 22 Oct. 2009. Web. 13 Aug. 2015.

12. Naipaul, V. S., and Seepersad Naipaul. Letters between a Father and Son. London: Little Brown, 1999. Print.

13. Perlman, Freddy. “Nachalo, Sophia, and Yarostan Vochek. Letters of Insurgents. Detroit”: Black & Red, 1976. Print.

14. Phelan, James. "The Implied Author, Deficient Narration, and Nonfiction Narrative: Or, What's Off-Kilter in The Year of Magical Thinking and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly ?" Style Spring 45.1 (2011): 119-37.JSTOR [JSTOR]. Web. 13 Aug. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.45.1.119>.

15. Pugh, Sharon L., and Jesus Garcia. "Portraits in Black: Establishing African American Identity Through Nonfiction Books." Journal of Reading Sept 34.1 (1990): 20-25. JSTOR. Web. 13 Aug. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40033065>.

16. Richardson, Brian. "Nabokov's Experiments and the Nature of Fictionality." Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies 3 (2011): 73-92. JSTOR [JSTOR]. Web. 17 Aug. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/storyworlds.3.2011.0073>.

Kumar 17

17. Rohrbach, Augusta. "Review: The Situation and the Story: The Art of Personal Narrative by Vivian Gornick." Biography Fall 26.4 (2003): 719-22. JSTOR [JSTOR]. Web. 13 Aug. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/23540447>.

18. Ryan, Marie-Laure. "Postmodernism and the Doctrine of Panfictionality." Narrative May 5.2 (1997): 165-87. JSTOR. Web. 13 Aug. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20107114>.

19. Searle, John R., and Daniel Vanderveken. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. PDF.

20. The Rise and Rise of Nonfiction Television. Perf. Peter Hamilton. TED. TEDxTalks, 4 June 2013. Web. 13 Aug. 2015.

21. Walsh, Richard. “Fictionality and Mimesis: Between Narrativity and Fictional Worlds.” Narrative Jan 11.1 (2003): 110-121. JSTOR. Web. 2 Sept. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20107303>.

22. White, Hayden. "The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality." Critical Inquiry 7.1, On Narrative (1980): 5-27. JSTOR. Web. 13 Aug. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343174>.

Other Sources

1. Neilsen, Henrik Skov. “E-Mail Exchanges.” Rec. Karan Kumar, Dr. Hyesu Park, and Dr. Henrik S. Nielsen. August 2015.