relevant to clarifying my positions. Thus, for example, the argument in chap-
ter 1 depends on a strong comparison and contrast between the narrative
communication model in Seymour Chatman’s structuralist narratology and
the model I have developed, and in chapter 8, I demonstrate one way in which
I think cognitive and rhetorical theory can work together. But in other chap-
ters, my larger goal leads me to stay tightly focused on the two-way traffic
between rhetorical theory and the interpretation of individual narratives.
Finally, a word on terminology: as I’ve noted elsewhere (“Voice”), I realize
that many outsiders regard narrative theorists as what the late, largely unla-
mented Spiro Agnew might have called “nattering nabobs of needless neolo-
gisms.” Although I do not share that view, I understand that sometimes the
thick terministic screen of narrative theory impedes rather than facilitates the
understanding of its concepts. To address that problem, I invite my readers
to draw on two corollaries to Ockham’s famous Razor, which states, “Do not
multiply entities beyond necessity.” Corollary 1 is what I call Phelan’s Handle:
concepts are more important than terms. Phelan’s Handle means that the nar-
rative theorist should be sure that terms are in the service of concepts, not
vice versa. If a new term is proposed, it should not only be clearly tied to a
concept, but it should also facilitate the understanding and the deployment
of the concept. Corollary 2 is what I’ll call Phelan’s Shaver: some concepts
are more central than others. Phelan’s Shaver means that in any given study,
readers should (a) distinguish between essential and ancillary concepts and
(b) feel free to pay more attention to the central concepts than to the subordi-
nate ones. Thus, for example, the distinction between unreliable and deficient
narration (the first is intentional, the second is not) is a central concept, while
the subtypes of deficient narration are ancillary. The purpose of elaborating
the subtypes is to add both substance and nuance to the essential concept,
and the elaboration allows for a deeper dive into the phenomenon. Phelan’s
Shaver means that I would not be disappointed to learn that readers of this
book will not memorize the subtypes, but I would be disappointed to learn
that they would not retain—because they would not find useful—the distinc-
tion between unreliable and deficient narration. Not surprisingly, I make only
occasional references to Phelan’s Shaver in the following chapters, but I invite
my readers to wield it as they see fit.
THE VARIOUS PARTS of this book have been written over the last decade,
and, in that time, I have accumulated intellectual and personal debts too deep
and too numerous to settle in this preface. But I want at least to offer the aca-
xii • PREFACE