Essay On Metafiction

1207 Words3 Pages

Critics like Waugh assert that by calling the reader’s attention to novelistic frames, metafiction “lays bare the conventions of realism” and is a way of “tracing the outline of the frame through which we look at [fiction]” (18, 27). To be sure, metafiction uses the literary devices of parody and irony to allow the reader to recognise and critique literary or social conventions. However, just as non-metafictional texts naturalise the literary frames and conventions they use, some critics have noticed that metafiction also “creates a new illusion, even as it claims to denounce the one on which the ‘traditional realistic’ novel is based” (Hutcheon, Narcissistic Narrative 45). This illusion is one that assumes that in a metafictional text, “frame” and “frame-break” (Waugh 142), or convention and the breaking of convention, are clearly delineated. This would imply that metafiction becomes an almost transparent medium through which we can examine convention and fiction. However, this argument is unpersuasive as metafictional texts are ultimately still composed of language, and have their own conventions such as self-reflexivity and parody, which may or may not be commented upon in these texts. To expose the frames of metafiction, it is clear that a “metalanguage” is required, a “language that functions as a signifier” (Waugh 4) to the language of metafiction. This is what I call meta-metafiction.
Most commentators have stopped short at identifying meta-metafiction as a distinct mode of writing from metafiction. The illusion of metafiction’s transparency, coupled with the anxiety that recursion in fiction would lead to an “uncontrolled” proliferation of images without an “outer frame” to prevent the text from “[breaking] down into rando...

... middle of paper ...

...r are self-reflexive of themselves as particular fictional texts and analyse the movement between the different frames of reference as facilitated by parody and irony. Then, I will discuss their self-reflexivity in relation to fiction in general, and analyse the ways in which they facilitate and represent the production of textual meaning. Lastly, I will explore how these texts are self-reflexive of their existence as systems within the system of language, as well as why they are not infinitely regressive despite their increasingly “meta” level of commentary. To conclude, I will address the tension between the potentialities and limitations of all “meta” fictions and texts that belong to the system of language. To be sure, my paper is also subject to these same limitations, but in the absence of a better way of communicating these ideas, these words will have to do.

Open Document