'; Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. Harold Bloom, ed. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1986. Shepherd, Robert D., Ed. The Scarlet Letter.
“An Explication of the Player’s Speech.” Modern Critical Interpretations: Hamlet. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1986. Rpt.
Modern Critical Views. New York: Chelsea House, 1986. Volpe, Edmond. A Reader's Guide to William Faulkner. New York: Octagon, 1974.
Barth redefines this relationship as one of inherent, but not defined, meaning by entering into self-reflexivity and consciousness as the novel progresses. Barth furthers the deconstructive project by asserting LF’s fictionality to engage the reader in play, rather than a passive consumption of authorial intent. (Worthington) As Lost in the Funhouse is constitutive of many stories that are about the inability of traditional narrative meeting contemporary needs, “the old analogy between Author and God…can no longer be employed” (LF 125). The novel begs the question of what literature can do if the medium is “moribund..if not already dead.” (LF... ... middle of paper ... ...y of Autobiography in John Barth's Lost in the Funhouse." Studies in Short Fiction 34.2 (1997): 151.
New York: Anchor Books, 1977. Greenfield, Stanley B.. “The Finn Episode and its Parallet.” In Beowulf: The Donaldson Translation, edited by Joseph F. Tuso. New York, W.W.Norton and Co.: 1975. Tripp, Raymond P. “Digressive Revaluation(s).” In Beowulf – Modern Critical Interpretations, edited by Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987.