Download pdf
History or Dream: A Comparative Study of “Tom Jones” and “Hongloumeng” on Authorially Claimed Fictionality
- 1 Fudan University
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
This essay makes a comparative study of Tom Jones and Hongloumeng from the perspective of the matter of fictionality. Both texts include authorial intrusions that straightforwardly signify the fictionality of the texts, complicating the problem of fictionality in the texts by affecting the delivery and connotation of the messages, or the truths, of the texts, while such fictionality functions distinctively differently in these two works. In comparison, this essay further elaborates on how authorially claimed fictionality splits texts into multiple layers among which readers are demanded to properly posit themselves among while reading, and how the progress of readers’ reading of these layered texts complicates and resolves the matter of fictionality to drive readers to perceive the messages of the works. While Tom Jones’ fictionality progresses by distancing readers from both the storyworld and the authorial narrator, HLM’s fictionality functions by devouring both the readers and the author to immerse them in the storyworld. By different approaches to fictionality, the two texts lead readers to different types of truths. Therefore, this essay might offer a glimpse into the matter of fictionality in novel, on how fictionality constructs the nature of novel.
Keywords
Tom Jones, Hongloumeng, Fictionality, Authorial Intrusion.
[1]. Gallagher, Catherine. “The Rise of Fictionality. ” The Novel, edited by Franco Moretti, vol. 1, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 336.
[2]. Rothstein, Eric. “VIRTUES OF AUTHORITY IN ‘TOM JONES.’” The Eighteenth Century, vol. 28, no. 2, 1987, pp. 99–126.
[3]. Booth, Wayne C. “The Self-Conscious Narrator in Comic Fiction before Tristram Shandy.” PMLA, vol. 67, no. 2, 1952, pp. 163–85.
[4]. Dawson, Paul. “From Digressions to Intrusions: Authorial Commentary in the Novel.” Studies in the Novel, vol. 48, no. 2, 2016, pp. 145–67.
[5]. Gjerlevsen, Simona Zetterberg. “A Novel History of Fictionality.” Narrative, vol. 24, no. 2, 2016, pp. 174–89.
[6]. McNamara, Susan P. “Mirrors of Fiction Within Tom Jones: The Paradox of Self-Reference.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol. 12, no. 3, 1979, pp. 372–90.
[7]. Preston, John. “Plot as Irony: The Reader’s Role in Tom Jones.” ELH, vol. 35, no. 3, 1968, pp. 365–80.
[8]. Bech, Lene. “Fiction That Leads to Truth: ‘The Story of the Stone’ as Skillful Means.” Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews (CLEAR), vol. 26, 2004, pp. 1–21.
[9]. Yu, Anthony C. Rereading the Stone: Desire and the Making of Fiction in Dream of the Red Chamber. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
[10]. Yau, Ka-Fai. “Realist Paradoxes: The Story of the ‘Story of the Stone.’” Comparative Literature, vol. 57, no. 2, 2005, pp. 117–34.
[11]. Fielding, Henry. The History of Tom Jones, Reprinted in Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd, 1985, p.52.
[12]. Watt, Ian. “Fielding as Novelist: Tom Jones.” The Rise of the Novel. Ebook version by Pimlico, 2000, p.261.
[13]. Stevick, Philip. “Fielding and the Meaning of History.” PMLA, vol. 79, no. 5, 1964, pp. 561–68.
Cite this article
Guo,W. (2024). History or Dream: A Comparative Study of “Tom Jones” and “Hongloumeng” on Authorially Claimed Fictionality. Communications in Humanities Research,50,149-156.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication Studies
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).