have so far. Indeed, in light of what the approaches have in common, we ought
to pause and consider why there has not yet been much collaboration.
I identify four main reasons: (1) As cognitive narratology has emerged
over the last two decades or so, it has understandably been focused on how
it is distinct from other approaches to narrative, especially what Herman has
dubbed classical narratology.^4 (2) Cognitive theory’s chief way of establishing
that distinctiveness has been to focus on the consequences of various find-
ings of cognitive studies—findings ranging from research on Theory of Mind
to Daniel Dennett’s philosophical work on consciousness—for the way we
understand narratives themselves. In other words, the work moves from cog-
nitive studies to generalizations about narrative and then to testing and exem-
plification in relation to individual narratives. Those moves neither require
nor encourage engagement with rhetorical theory. (3) Rhetorical theory, as
the previous chapters in this book indicate, has been concerned with revising
and extending work in its tradition in order to establish its own distinctive-
ness among other approaches. Indeed, the contributions that Rabinowitz and
I make to Narrative Theory: Core Concepts and Critical Debates primarily seek
to stake out rhetorical theory’s place in the landscape of contemporary narra-
tive studies. (4) Narrative theorists have been emphasizing the point that their
field now contains multiple approaches, and this emphasis has worked against
efforts to integrate those approaches.
I acknowledge at the outset that a single inquiry cannot demonstrate all
the ways in which the projects of rhetorical poetics and cognitive narratol-
ogy may productively collaborate. My modest goal, then, is to carry out one
such collaboration, and my immodest hope is that it will spur other research-
ers both to respond to it and to explore other ways of bringing the projects
together.
METAREPRESENTATION, CHARACTER NARRATION, AND THE
ETHICS OF MORRISON’S TELLING
Since Morrison’s decision to withhold the racial identity of Twyla and Roberta
is central to understanding her communication, I begin with it. In terms
- While Herman’s distinction between classical and postclassical narratologies has pro-
vided a useful shorthand for discussing the history of the field, it has had the unfortunate side
effect of suggesting that the narratology of the French structuralists of the 1960s and 1970s
is the fountain from which all subsequent narrative theory flows. Among other things, this
view either omits or discounts the Aristotelian tradition out of which contemporary rhetorical
theory has grown.
TONI MORRISON’S DETERMINATE AMBIgUITY • 153