English Studies Forum

The Forum Reviews

Crossing the Book-Brain Border

Marisa Bortolussi and  Peter Dixon. Psychonarratology: Foundations for the Empirical Study of Literary Response. Cambridge UP, 2003. 304pp. $25.00.

By Paul Campbell

            The daunting title of Bortolussi and Dixon’s Psychonarratology belies the work’s most compelling feature: its eminent accessibility. The dichotomy between text and title is appropriate here, however, as it models the situation the book attempts to correct. Empirical psychological investigation may seem far from the interests and abilities of most literary scholars, but it is actually a useful and easily-acquired tool these scholars can employ to their benefit.

            The authors define psychonarratology as “the investigation of mental processes and representations corresponding to the textual features and structures of narrative” (24). In other words, the combination of empirical psychology (especially as it is employed in discourse processing) with narratology. The most obvious question one might pose at this point is “why?” but the authors compellingly suggest that each discipline (as well as a host of related and sub-disciplines) needs the other to answer questions neither could on its own.

Because the work is intended to introduce the psychonarratological approach to scholars from diverse disciplines, it moves slowly, carefully contextualizing its contents and providing specific example before moving on. Although the relatively slow pace seemed unnecessary to me in points, I understand its purpose. Being a literary scholar, I read quickly through some of the sections on narratology, but crawled through the sections on psychological statistics; had I been a psychologist, I expect the reverse would have been equally true. To aid both types of reader, the authors provide a detailed introduction to the various approaches to the study of narrative (most of which will be familiar to literary types), as well as an appendix explaining psychological basics like experimental design and likelihood ratios. In short, no one is left behind, and little is taken for granted.

Despite its reader-friendly approach, however, Psychonarratology is not simply an introductory textbook. The authors forward two basic premises that guide their investigations, premises that are themselves sources of some debate. First, Bortolussi and Dixon claim that “it is essential to distinguish features of the text on the one hand from the reader’s mental constructions on the other” (24). This is obviously an important and necessary first step in any scientific analysis of reader response; without clear distinctions between causes and effects, no reliable conclusions can be drawn. In the literary community, however, making such distinctions is controversial. Critics like Stanley Fish have argued that the text exists only in the mind of the reader, and that it has no independent existence. This stems from a long-standing aversion to formalist notions of the primacy of the text, which exclude any external considerations or idiosyncratic reader constructions. However, Bortolussi and Dixon do not fall into the feared formalist pitfall. They support the idea that the text is (at least in part) a compilation of formal devices that work in concert to create its meaning. However, they are equally well aware that the textual features work within the mind of the reader, and that to understand the textual experience, one must account not only for the text, but for the mind that processes it. It is only by first untangling and then examining both sides of the narrative encounter that we can come to understand it.

The second pivotal claim underpinning Psychonarratology is that “a great deal of progress can be made in understanding how readers process narrative by assuming that the narrator is treated as a conversational participant” (24-25, italics mine). The authors are quick to point out that this does not mean the text is the medium through which the author engages the reader in conversation. They also deny the claim that the non-existent, fictional narrator engages in a conversation, in communication, with readers. Since the reader is unable to communicate with, and receive a response from the text, the conventional conversational relation is impossible. Instead, Bortolussi and Dixon believe that “readers treat narrators as if they were conversational participants” (73). This seemingly minor but important distinction allows them to use important empirical evidence from discourse processing, while centering their focus firmly on the reader (an entity to which they have access), rather than on the author (who is inaccessible) or the narrator-as-person (who is even less accessible, as he or she doesn’t actually exist).

From the starting place these premises provide, Bortolussi and Dixon examine some important and vexing questions in the study of narrative, devoting chapters to narration, plot, characterization, and represented speech. In each, an abundance of space is given to contextualizing the issue, thoroughly representing the course of the debate over time and across disciplines. This does lead the text away from a thorough discussion of the specific academic debates taking place around the issues today, but that small sacrifice allows for a more comprehensive discussion, which prevents non-specialists from being excluded. Most importantly, as a fitting end to each of these sections, the authors provide examples of the practice they’ve been preaching, providing the results of empirical research they’ve completed which confirm or at least support their theoretical hypotheses.

Finally, in a refreshing and enlightening admission of Psychonarratology’s limits, Bortolussi and Dixon present a chapter entitled “Directions and Unsolved Problems.” Here, the authors delve into questions for which they have found no solutions, or which they can presently see no way of solving. They also suggest extending their approach to dramatic and cinematic forms, spheres of narration which are not dealt with throughout the text. This is a fitting end, considering the objectives the authors outline at the beginning of the text. Their goal is to present a novel and effective interdisciplinary method for studying narrative; it will be the work of future contributions, by both Bortolussi and Dixon and other scholars who follow their design, which will show how important and influential psychonarratology will eventually prove.