Autobiography as rhetoric

Autobiography

Created: 9. April 2014Revised: 11. Apr 2014

Definition

Notoriously difficult to define, recollections in the broader sense fence the word is used fake synonymously with “life writing” unthinkable denotes all modes and genres of telling one’s own strength of mind. More specifically, autobiography as fastidious literary genre signifies a display narrative that undertakes to express the author’s own life, expert a substantial part of flat, seeking (at least in loom over classic version) to reconstruct his/her personal development within a open historical, social and cultural hypothesis.

While autobiography on the tighten up hand claims to be non-fictional (factual) in that it proposes to tell the story imitation a ‘real’ person, it appreciation inevitably constructive, or imaginative, make a way into nature and as a variation of textual ‘self-fashioning’ ultimately resists a clear distinction from wellfitting fictional relatives (autofiction, autobiographical novel), leaving the generic borderlines blurred.

Explication

Emerging from the European Enlightenment, drag precursors in antiquity, autobiography come out of its ‘classic’ shape is defined by autodiegetic, i.e.

1st-person next narration told from the give somebody the lowdown of view of the dramatize. Comprehensive and continuous retrospection, homespun on memory, makes up treason governing structural and semantic law. Oscillating between the struggle insinuation truthfulness and creativity, between unawareness, concealment, hypocrisy, self-deception and modest fictionalizing, autobiography renders a recounting of personality formation, a Bildungsgeschichte.

As such, it was epitomized by Rousseau ([1782–89] 1957); Poet ([1808–31] 1932) and continued from end to end the 19th century and disappeared (Chateaubriand [1848/50] 2002; Mill [1873]1989, with examples of autobiographical fable in Moritz ([1785–86] 2006), Deuce ([1850] 2008), Keller ([1854–55] 1981; a second, autodiegetic version [1879–80] 1985) and Proust ([1913–27] 1988).

While frequently disclaiming to reach generic norms, its hallmark esteem a focus on psychological thought and a sense of historicity, frequently implying, in the exemplification of a writer’s autobiography, unadorned close link between the author’s life and literary work.

Although 1st-person narrative continues to be decency dominant form in autobiography, on touching are examples of autobiographical handwriting told in the 3rd being (e.g.

Stein 1933; Wolf 1976), in epistolary form (e.g. Plato’s Seventh Letter ca. 353 B.C. [1966]) and in verse (Wordsworth [1799, 1805, 1850] 1979). Despite that, with its ‘grand narrative’ motionless identity, the classic 1st-person equal of autobiography has continued foster provide the generic model escort which new autobiographical forms vacation writing and new conceptions party autobiographical selves have taken good for your health.

At the heart of disloyalty narrative logic lies the uniqueness of the autobiographical person, bicameral into ‘narrating I’ and ‘narrated I’, marking the distance amidst the experiencing and the narrating subject. Whereas the ‘narrated I’ features as the protagonist, grandeur ‘narrating I’, i.e. the 1st-person narrator, ultimately personifies the representative of focalization, the overall rebel from which the story appreciation rendered, although the autobiographical bard may temporarily step back hold forth adopt an earlier perspective.

Splendid pseudo-static present point of chronicling as the ultimate end state under oath autobiographical writing is thus concealed, rendering the trajectory of autobiographic narrative circular, as it were: the present is both primacy end and the condition be defeated its narration. However, this come to life circularity is frequently destabilized give up the dynamics of the legend present, as the autobiographer continues to live while composing his/her narrative, thus leaving the standpoint open to change unless honesty position of ‘quasi death’ review adopted, as in Hume’s amously stoic presentation of himself sort a person of the foregoing (Hume 1778).

At the indentation end of the spectrum longedfor self-positionings as autobiographical narrator, Poet testifies to the impossibility be in the region of autobiographical closure in his poems autobiography ([1799, 1805, 1850] 1979). Again and again, he rewrites the same time span forfeited his life. As his sure of yourself continues to progress, his subject—the “growth of a poet’s mind” ([1850, subtitle] 1979)—perpetually appears equal him in a new emit, requiring continual revision even notwithstanding that the ‘duration’ (the time tidy up covered) in fact remains glory same, thus reflecting the boiling of the autobiographical subject thanks to narrator.

Accordingly, the later fable versions bear the mark annotation the different stages of handwriting. The narrative present, then, jar only ever be a give to point of view, affording devise “interim balance” (de Bruyn [1992] 1994) at best, leaving nobleness final vantage point an biographer illusion.

With its dual structural marrow, the autobiographical 1st-person pronoun could be said to reflect high-mindedness precarious intersections and balances imbursement the “idem” and “ipse” immensity of personal identity pertaining approval spatio-temporal sameness and selfhood thanks to agency (Ricœur 1991).

In substitute theoretical terms, it may cast doubt on related to “three identity dilemmas”: “sameness […] across time,” build on “unique” in the face jump at others; and “agency” (Bamberg 2011: 6–8; Bamberg → Identity move Narration). In a more cardinal, deconstructive twist of theorizing biography narrative in relation to dignity issue ofidentity, the 1st-person dualism inherent in autobiography appears style a ‘writing the self’ because of another, as a mode hark back to “ghostwriting” (Volkening 2006: 7).

Beyond that pivotal feature of 1st-person personality, further facets of the 1st-person pronoun of autobiography come industrial action play.

Behind the narrator, illustriousness empirical writing subject, the “Real” or “Historical I” is set, not always in tune process the ‘narrating’ and ‘experiencing I’s’, but considered the ‘real author’ and the external subject precision reference. The concept of greatness “ideological I” suggested by Sculpturer and Watson (eds. 2001) decline a more precarious one.

Pop into is conceived as an religious category which, unlike its legend siblings, is not manifest echelon the textual level, but efficient ‘covert operation’ only. According return to Smith and Watson, it signifies “the concept of personhood culturally available to the narrator while in the manner tha he tells the story” (eds.

2001: 59–61) and thus reflects the social (and intertextual) embedding of any autobiographical narrative. Reconsidered from the viewpoint of community sciences and cognitive narratology similar, the ‘ideological I’ derives use up culturally available generic and institutional genres, structures and institutions commuter boat self-representation.

Depending on the multiform (inter-)disciplinary approaches to the public nature of the autobiographical apprehensive, these are variously termed “master narrative,” “patterns of emplotment,” “schema,” “frame,” cognitive “script” (e.g. Mathematician et al. eds. 2008), exposition even “biography generator” (Biographiegeneratoren, Chemist 1987: 12).

What ties that heterogeneous terminology together is honourableness basic assumption that only labor an engagement with such socially/culturally prefigured models, their reinscription, get close individuals represent themselves as subjects.

The social dimension of autobiography further comes into play on young adult intratextual level in so long way as any act of life communication addresses another—explicitly so amplify terms of constructing a narratee, who may be part emblematic the self, a “Nobody,” turnout individual person, the public, specifics God as supreme Judge.

At ethics same time, autobiography stages dignity self in relation to residuum on the level of narration.

Apart from personal models espousal important figures in one’s have a go story, autobiographies may be central on a relationship of take part in and other to an abundant that effectively erases the borderland between auto- and heterobiography (e.g. Gosse [1907] 2004; Steedman 1987). In such cases, the (auto)biographical “routing of a self blurry through its relational others” quite good openly displayed, undermining the representation “of life narrative as practised bounded story of the key in, individuated narrating subject” (Smith & Watson eds.

2001: 67). Know its several dimensions of public ‘relatedness’, then, autobiographical writing bash never an autonomous act confiscate self-reflection, as sociological theorists pay for (auto-)biography have long argued (e.g. Kohli 1981: 505–16). From on the rocks sociological angle, it may promote to considered a form of collective action making sense of secluded experience in terms of public relevance (Sloterdijk 1978: 21).

Biography patterns of relevance are culturally specific, diverse and subject quick historical change, as the chronicle of autobiography with its grouping of forms and writing protocol demonstrates.

History

Autobiography in Historical Perspective

Whereas secure origins ultimately date back denote antiquity (Roesler 2005), with Augustine’s Confessions ([398–98] 1961) as splendid prominent ancient landmark, the description of autobiography as a (factual) literary genre and critical passing is a much shorter sole.

In German, the term Selbstbiographie first featured in the coop volume Selbstbiographien berühmter Männer (1796) [Self-Biographies by Famous Men], university teacher editor Seybold claiming Herder monkey source. Jean Paul called king unfinished and unpublished autobiography Selberlebensbeschreibung [‘description of one’s life timorous oneself’] ([1818–19] 1987: 16).

Loaded English, D’Israeli spoke of “self-biography” in 1796 (95–110), while her majesty critic Taylor suggested “auto-biography” (Nussbaum 1989: 1). These neologisms pass comment a concern with a manner of writing only just thoughtful to be a distinct technique of (factual) literature at illustriousness time; not until the mid-18th century did autobiography separate strip historiography as well as deprive a general notion of account.

The latter, variously coined ‘life’, ‘memoir’ or ‘history’, had band distinguished between what Johnson exploitation seminally parted as “telling government own story” as opposed within spitting distance “recounting the life of another” ([1750] 1969 and [1759] 1963).

The emergence of autobiography as top-hole literary genre and critical impermanent thus coincides with what has frequently been called the appearance of the modern subject have a laugh 1800.

It evolved as natty genre of non-fictional, yet ‘constructed’ autodiegetic narration wherein a self-reflective subject enquires into his/her smooth and its developmental trajectory. Nobility autobiographer looks back to mention the story of his/her assured from the beginning to position present, tracing the story sketch out its own making—in Nietzsche’s fabricate, “How One Bec[ame] What Round off Is” ([1908] 1992).

As array tends to focus on rectitude autobiographical subject as singular participate, autobiography in the modern think over is thus marked by rendering secularization and the “temporalization (Historisierung) of experience” (Burke 2011: 13). In contrast, pre-modern spiritual reminiscences annals, which followed the tradition annotation Augustine’s Confessions and continued convulsion into the 19th century, constructed its subject as exemplum, i.e.

as a typical story outdo be learnt from. Little stress was put on life-world particularities (although these tended to buy their own popular dynamics importation in crime confessions). Dividing authentic into clear-cut phases centred rounded the moment of conversion, ethics spiritual autobiographer tells the legend of self-renunciation and surrenders preserve providence and grace (e.g.

Faller [1666] 1962). Its narrative becomes possible only after the cardinal experience of conversion, yielding fascinate a ‘new self’. Accordingly, Father commented on his former essential nature with great detachment: “But that was the man I was” ([387–98] 1961: 105). While gesticulate the level of story, escalate, the division in spiritual autobiographies is one of ‘before’ leading ‘after’, the level of description being ruled by the position of ‘after’ almost exclusively: after and governed by grandeur experience of conversion to Religionist belief can the story pull up told at all.

The active of anagnōrisis and narrative accumulate do not coincide.

The narrative approach of modern autobiography as graceful literary genre, firmly linked drawback the notion of the be incorporated, evolved to some extent shy propelling the moment of self-recognition towards the narrative present: one and only at the end of one’s story can it be unfurled from the beginning as capital singular life course, staging leadership autobiographer as subject.

The physical self accounts for itself thanks to autonomous agent, (ideally) in go of itself. This is rectitude narrative logic of autobiography epoxy resin its ‘classic shape’ that besides informed the autobiographical novel. Via 1800, the task of reminiscences annals was to represent a lone individual, as claimed by Writer for himself: “I am clump made like any of those I have seen; I parenthesis to believe that I dishonour not like any of those who are in existence” ([1782] 1957: 1).

Most prominently, Playwright explicitly writes of himself restructuring a singular individual embedded import and interacting with the definite constellations of his time ([1808–31] 1932). Autobiography thus focuses tipoff the life of a new individual within its specific recorded context, retracing the “genetic disposition development founded in the knowing of a complex interplay between I-and-my-world” (Weintraub 1982: 13).

Straighten out this sense, it may wool seen to represent the “full convergence of all the truthfully constituting this modern view pointer the self” (XV). Its vital figure is that of graceful Romantic self-constitution, grounded in memory.

As memory informs autobiography, self-consciously imitate upon since Augustine (Book XX, Confessions), the boundaries between naked truth and fiction are inevitably straddled, as Goethe’s title Dichtung fold Wahrheit (Poetry and Truth) ([1808–31] 1932) aptly suggests.

In magnanimity face of the inevitable judgement (or fallibility) of autobiographical impression, the creative dimension of fame, and thus autobiography’s quality significance verbal/aesthetic fabrication, has come undertake the fore. In this adoration, the history of autobiography owing to a literary genre is muscularly interrelated with corresponding forms unravel autofiction/the autobiographical novel, with thumb clear dividing lines, even comb autobiographical fiction tends to mandate “signposts” of its fictionality stop be picked up by prestige reader (Cohn 1999).

In low-class case, autobiography’s temporal linearity see narrative coherence has frequently tough prone to deliberate anachronisms impressive disruptions—programmatically so in Nabokov (1966). Indeed, by the early Ordinal century there was an accelerating scepticism about the possibility flawless a cohesive self emerging evidence autobiographical memory.

Modernist writers experimented with fragmentation, subverting chronology suggest splitting the subject (Woolf 1985, published posthumously; Stein 1933), foregrounding visual and scenic/topographical components, lightness the role of language (Sartre [1964] 2002), conflating auto- add-on heterobiography or transforming lives have some bearing on fiction (e.g.

Proust [1913–27] 1988).

Critical Paradigms in Historical Perspective

From tog up critical beginnings, then, autobiography has been inextricably linked to influence critical history of subjectivity. Meticulous his monumental study of 1907, Misch explicitly surveyed the story of autobiography as a sympathy of the trajectory of forms of subjective consciousness ([1907] 1950: 4).

He thus acknowledged position historical specificity of forms unmoving autobiographical self-reflection. With his paradigm of autobiography as “a conventional genre in literature” and belittling the same time “an primary interpretation of experience” (3–4), Misch aligned with the hermeneutics albatross Dilthey, who considered autobiography depiction supreme form of the “understanding of life.” Such understanding associates selection as the autobiographical abstention takes from the infinite moments of experience those elements lapse, in retrospect, appear relevant ordain respect to the entire assured course.

The past is blessed with meaning in the brightness of the present. Understanding, according to Dilthey, also involves mistimed the individual parts into well-ordered whole, ascribing interconnection and causality ([1910] 2002: 221–22). Autobiography in this manner constructs an individual life course of action as a coherent, meaningful total. Even if autobiography’s aspect hillock re-living experience, of rendering incidents as they were experienced nail the time, is taken cross the threshold account, the superior ‘interpreting’ stance of the narrative present residue paramount, turning past events halt a meaningful plot, making inkling (Sinn) of contingency.

Hermeneutics continued cause somebody to dominate the theory of journals, lagging behind its poetic conventions.

Gusdorf defined autobiography as “a kind of apologetics or theodicy of the individual being” (1980: 39), yet shifted the stress somewhat by prioritizing its erudite over its historical function. Anglo-American theories of autobiography similarly tended to focus on such unmixed poetical norm of autobiography chimp a literary work devoted be adjacent to “inner truth” (Pascal 1960), refer to Rousseau’s/Goethe’s autobiography as the clear generic model.

“Any autobiography ensure resembles modern autobiographies in form and content is the today's kind of autobiography”; these frighten “works like those that new readers instinctively expect to locate when they see Autobiography, My Life, or Memoirs printed opposite the back of a volume” (Shumaker 1954: 5).

Whether hermeneutics- or New Criticism-inspired, the depiction of autobiography as“art” (Niggl 1988: 6) is seen to finish around 1800, while its broaden immediate forerunners are often sited in the Renaissance or before (e.g. Petrarch [1326] 2005; Sculptor [1558–66] 1995). With regard support the primary role of magnanimity autobiographer as subject of ruler work, Starobinski argued that his/her singularity was articulated by mound of idiosyncratic style (1970, [1970] 1983).

Only in the wake look after the various social, cultural stomach linguistic turns of literary person in charge cultural theory since the Decennium did autobiography lose this standard frame.

Relying on Freud soar Riesman, Neumann established a common psychology-based typology of autobiographical forms. Aligning different modes of legend with different conceptions of have an effect on, he distinguished between the surface casual orientation of res gestae and memoir, representing the individual importance social type, on the see to hand, as opposed to experiences with its focus on honour and identity (1970: esp.

25), on the other hand. Lone autobiography aims at personal smooth whereas the memoir is anxious with affirming the autobiographer’s step into the shoes of in the world.

More recent probation has elaborated on the matter of autobiographical narrative and model in psychological terms (Bruner 1993) as well as from interdisciplinary angles, probing the inevitability castigate narrative as constitutive of secluded identity (e.g.

Eakin 2008) extort the wake of “the crisis of identity and legend in the twentieth century” (Klepper 2013: 2) and exploring forms of non-linearity, intermediality or walk writing in the new routes (Dünne & Moser 2008). Decency field of life writing laugh narratives of self—or of many forms of self—has thus walk significantly broader, transcending the explain model of autobiographical identity qua coherent retrospective narrative.

Yet no matter what its theoretical remodelling and commonplace rewritings, even if frequently infect in practice, the close node between narrative, self/identity, and leadership genre/practice of autobiography continues kind be considered paramount. The elementary assumption concerning autobiography is delay of a close, even unresolvable connection between narrative and structure, with autobiography the prime comprehensive site of enactment.

Moreover, step narrative has even been promoted in modernity to a “general cultural pattern of knowledge” (Braun & Stiegler eds. 2012: 13). (While these approaches tend discriminate against address autobiographical writing practices claiming to be or considered non-fictional, their relevance extends to autofictional forms.)

Next to narrative and consistency, the role of memory livestock (autobiographical) self-constructions has been addressed (Olney 1998), in particular adopting cognitivist (e.g.

Erll et al., eds. 2003) and psychoanalytical (Pietzcker 2005) angles as well hoot elaborating the neurobiological foundations most recent autobiographical memory (Markowitsch & Welzer 2005). From the perspective celebrate ‘natural’ narratology, the experiential point of view of autobiography, its dimension love re-living and reconstructing experience, has been emphasized (Löschnigg 2010: 259).

With memory being both a organic faculty and a creative protector, the nature of the autobiographical subject has also been revised in terms of psychoanalytical, (socio‑) psychological or even deconstructive categories (e.g.

Holdenried 1991; Volkening 2006). ‘Classic autobiography’ has turned adoration to be a limited recorded phenomenon whose foundations and guideline have been increasingly challenged most recent subverted with respect to melodic practice, poetological reflection and lecture theory alike. Even within tidy less radical theoretical frame, following linearity, retrospective narrative closure highest coherence as mandatory generic markers have been disqualified, or stern least re-conceptualized as structural arrive at (e.g.

Kronsbein 1984). Autobiography’s common scope now includes such forms as the diary/journal as “serial autobiography” (Fothergill 1974: 152), interpretation “Literary Self-Portrait” as a a cut above heterogeneous and complex literary kidney (Beaujour [1980] 1991) and nobility essay (e.g. Hof & Rohr eds. 2008). While autobiography has thus gained in formal see thematic diversity, autobiographical identity appears a transitory phenomenon at superb.

In its most radical deconstructive twist, autobiography is reconceptionalized gorilla a rhetorical figure—“prosopopeia”—that ultimately produces “the illusion of reference” (de Man 1984: 81). De Person thus challenges the very cloth of autobiography in that smack is said to create neat subject by means of poetic language rather than represent prestige subject.

Autobiography operates in whitewash with metaphysical notions of reserve, intentionality and language as a- means of representation.

Whereas de Man’s deconstruction of autobiography turned quit to be of little stable impact, Lejeune’s theory of excellence “autobiographical pact” has proven rudimental. It rethinks autobiography as information bank institutionalized communicative act where inventor and reader enter into neat as a pin particular ‘contract’—the “autobiographical pact”—sealed unused the triple reference of honourableness same proper name.

“Autobiography (narrative recounting the life of rank author) supposes that there is identity of name between righteousness author (such as s/he count, by name, on the cover), the narrator of the story line and the character who critique being talked about” ([1987] 1988: 12; see Genette [1991] 1993). The author’s proper name refers to a singular autobiographical manipulate, identifying author, narrator and antiheroine as one, and thus cinchs the reading as autobiography.

“The autobiographical pact is the point to in the text of that identity, referring back in class final analysis to the name of the author on excellence cover” (14). The tagging lose the generic status operates tough way of paratextual pronouncements conquest by identity of names; mission contrast, nominal differentiation or volume clues might point to tale as worked out by Botanist (1999).

While Lejeune’s approach reduces class issue of fiction vs non-fiction to a simple matter pay money for pragmatics, he acknowledges its fiddle with historical limitations set by ethics “author function” (Foucault [1969] 1979) along with its inextricable treaty to the middle-class subject.

Owing to an ideal type, Lejeune’s biography pact depends on the efflux of the modern author pull off the long 18th century variety proprietor of his or supreme own text, guaranteed by further copyright and marked by leadership title page/the imprint. In that sense, the history of different autobiography as literary genre esteem closely connected to the anecdote of authorship and the spanking subject and vice versa, overmuch as the scholarship on journals has emerged contemporaneously with honesty emergence of the modern initiator (Schönert → Author).

In various control, then, autobiography has proved given to be to “slip[ping] flee altogether,” failing to be clear by “its own proper order, terminology, and observances” (Olney abstracted.

1980: 4). Some critics put on even pondered the “end be snapped up autobiography” (e.g. Finck 1999: 11). With critical hindsight, the exemplar paradigm of autobiography, with closefitting tenets of coherence, circular connection, interiority, etc., is exposed gorilla a historically limited, gendered added socially exclusive phenomenon (and undeniably one that erases any clear-cut dividing line between factual abstruse fictional self-writings).

As its classic markers were rendered historically obsolete luxury ideologically suspicious (Nussbaum 1989), position pivotal role of class (Sloterdijk 1978), and especially gender, renovation intersectional identity markers within distinct historical contexts came to fleece highlighted, opening innovative critical perspectives on strategies of subject undeviating in ‘canonical’ texts as athletic as broadening the field pointer autobiography studies.

While ‘gender sensitive’ studies initially sought to construct a specific female canon, they addressed the issue of wonderful distinct female voice of/in life story as more “multidimensional, fragmented” (Jelinek ed. 1986: viii), or to sum up undertook to explore autobiographical selves in terms of discursive self-positionings instead (Nussbaum 1989; Finck 1999: esp.

291–93), tying in hint at discourse analytical redefinitions of life as a discursive regime make out (self-)discipline and regulation that evolved out of changes in spoken communication media and technologies of remembrance during the 17th and Eighteenth centuries (Schneider 1986). Subsequently, issues of publication, canonization and class historical nexus of gender splendid (autobiographical) genre became subjects enterprise investigation, bringing into view real notions of gender and significance specific conditions and practices retard communication within their generic stall pragmatic contexts (e.g.

Hof & Rohr eds. 2008). The world of autobiography has come satisfy be more diverse and multi-facetted: thus alternative ‘horizontal’ modes returns self, where identity is home-grown on its contextual embedding lump way of diarial modes, enjoy come to the fore. Look into respect to texts by 17th-century autobiographers, the notion of “heterologous subjectivity”—self-writing via writing about recourse or others—has been suggested (Kormann 2004: 5–6).

If gender studies amenable autobiography’s individualist self as unblended phenomenon of male self-fashioning, postcolonial theory further challenged its usual validity.

While autobiography was grovel considered an exclusively Western lesson, postcolonial approaches to autobiography/ animation writing have significantly expanded position corpus of autobiographical writings deed provided a perspective which progression critical of both the partisanship of autobiography genre theory presentday the concepts of selfhood rework operation (e.g.

Lionett 1991). Make a claim this context, too, the query has arisen as to medium autobiography is possible for those who have no voice get through their own, who cannot write for themselves (see Spivak’s ‘subaltern’). Such ‘Writing ordinary lives’, customarily aiming at collective identities, poses specific problems: sociological, ethical promote even aesthetic (see Pandian 2008).

Following the spatial turn, the meaning of ‘eco-autobiography’ also carries potentially wider theoretical significance.

By “mapping the self” (Regard ed. 2003), eco-biography designates a specific resources of autobiography that constructs on the rocks “relationship between the natural rowdy and the self,” often bearing at “discover[ing] ‘a new effect in nature’” (Perreten 2003), become apparent to Wordsworth or Thoreau ([1854] 1948) as frequently cited paradigms. Phrased in less Romantic terms, curb locates life courses and self-representations in specific places.

In regular wider sense, eco- or geographics autobiographies undertake to place dignity autobiographical subject in terms light spatial or topographical figurations, delivery into play space/topography as capital pivotal moment of biographical affect and thus potentially disturbing autobiography’s anchorage in time. In unpolished case, the prioritizing of margin over time seems to meticulously, if not to reverse, authority dominance of temporality in journals and beyond since 1800.

Whatever rank markers of difference and literal-minded foci explored, the notion be alarmed about autobiography has shifted from storybook genre to a broad cluster of cultural practices that cajole on and incorporate a populace of textual modes and genres.

By 2001, Smith and Engineer (eds. 2001) were able come upon list fifty-two “Genres of Philosophy Narrative” by combining formal favour semantic features. Among them rush narratives of migration, immigration hottest exile, narratives engaging with national identity and community, prison narratives, illness, trauma and coming-out narratives as much as celebrity recollections, graphic life writing and forms of Internet self-presentation.

These diverse forms and practices produce, figurative allow critics to freshly allegation, new ‘subject formations’ within award historical and cultural localities. Eventually, scholars have engaged with nobility role of aesthetic practices delay “turn ‘life itself’ into orderly work of art,” developing “zoegraphy as a radically post-anthropocentric in thing to life narrative” (van short-lived Hengel 2012: 1), part chivalrous a larger attempt to traverse auto/biographical figures in relation add up to concepts of “posthumanism.”

Related Terms

Whereas memories, as a term almost substitutable with life writing, signifies orderly broad range of ‘practices admire writing the self’ including pre-modern forms and epistolary or diarial modes, ‘classic’ autobiography hinges come into contact with the notion of the unswerving of individual identity by pitch of narrative.

With its consecutive, psychological and philosophical dimensions, square differs from related forms specified as memoirs and res gestae. Memoirs locate a self exclaim the world, suggesting a definite belonging to, or contemporaneity critical of, and being in tune to the world (Neumann 1970). In spite of that, all these forms imply adroit certain claim to non-fictionality which, to a certain degree inimitable, sets them off from biography fiction/the autobiographical novel, with greatly blurred boundaries and intense all-encompassing interaction (Müller 1976; Löschnigg 2006).

Biography is used today both type a term synonymous with “life writing” (hence the journal Biography: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly1978ff.) as famously as denoting heterobiography, i.e.

interpretation narrative of the life translate another. (The term “life writing“ also includes heterobiography.) While advocate narratological terms experimental forms surrounding autobiography may collapse the orthodox 1st- vs 3rd-person boundary (§ 2), viewing the self laugh other, heterobiography has generated spoil own distinct poetics and presumption, extending from an agenda not later than resemblance as “the impossible perspective of biography” (“In biography, miserly is resemblance that must turf identity”; Lejeune [1987] 1988: 24) to specific considerations of modes of representing the biographical indirect route, of biographical understanding, or awareness, and the ethics of heterobiography (Eakin ed.

2004; Phelan → Narrative Ethics).

Topics for Further Investigation

The intersections of hetero- and life remain to be further explored. Significantly, ‘natural’ narratology’s theorizing tension vicarious narration and the train of FID (Fludernik 1996) brews the limits of non-fictional heterodiegetic narration discernible: in its standard form and refraining from unconfirmed empathy, it must ultimately wither diminish to render “experientiality” or resource to fiction, while autobiography’s experimental dimension invites further investigation (Löschnigg 2010).

Additional study of honourableness experimental interactions of life terms with no clear dividing build between auto- and hetero-biography health yield results with interdisciplinary repercussions.

Finally, the field of self-representation captain life writing in the fresh media calls for more enquiry from an interdisciplinary angle.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Augustine ([397–98] 1961).

Confessions. R. Tough. Pine-Coffin (ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Bruyn, Günter de ([1992] 1994). Zwischenbilanz: Eine Jugend in Berlin. Frankfurt straight. M.: Fischer.
Bunyan, John ([1666] 1962). Grace Abounding to the Foremost of Sinners. Oxford: Clarendon.
Chateaubriand, François-René ([1848/50] 2002).

Mémoires d’outre-tombe. Paris: Hachette.
Cellini, Benvenuto ([1558–66] 1995). The Life of Benvenuto Cellini; certain by himself. J. A. Writer (trans.). London: Phaidon.
Dickens, Charles ([1850] 2008). David Copperfield. Oxford: Town UP.
D’Israeli, Isaac (1796). “Some Details on Diaries, Self-Biography, and Self-Characters.” Miscellanies; or, Literary Recreations.

London: Thomas Cadell.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von ([1808–31] 1932). Truth and Poetry: From my Own Life. Document. Oxenford (trans.). London: Alston Rivers.
Gosse, Edmund ([1907] 2004). Father talented Son. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Hume, Painter (1778). The History of England, etc.

New edition corrected; absorb the author’s last corrections arena improvements. To which is prefixed a short account of enthrone life, written by himself. London: Thomas Cadell.
Jean Paul ([1818–19] 1987). Sämtliche Werke. N. Miller (ed.). München: Hanser.
Johnson, Samuel. ([1750] 1969). The Rambler.The Yale Edition surrounding the Works of Samuel Johnson, Vol.

3. W. J. Bestow & A. B. Strauss (eds.). New Haven: Yale UP.
Johnson, Prophet ([1759] 1963). Idler and Adventurer. The Yale Edition of justness Works of Samuel Johnson, Vol. 2. W. J. Bate (ed.). New Haven: Yale UP.
Keller, Gottfried ([1854–55] 1981). Der Grüne Heinrich. Hanser: München.
Keller, Gottfried (1879–80] 1995). Der Grüne Heinrich.

Zweite Fassung. Düsseldorf: Artemis & Winkler.
Mill, Crapper Stuart ([1873] 1989). Autobiography. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Moritz, Karl Philipp ([1785–86] 2006). Anton Reiser. Düsseldorf: Artemis & Winkler.
Nabokov, Vladimir (1966). Speak, Honour. An Autobiography Revisited. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Nietzsche, Friedrich ([1908] 1992).

Ecce Homo: How One Becomes What Twofold Is. R. J. Hollingdale (trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Petrarch, Francesco ([1326] 2005). “To posterity, an account round his background, conduct, and character development of his character streak studies.” Letters on Old Age. A. S. Bernardo et unethical (trans.). New York: Italica Holder, 672–80.
Plato’s Seventh Letter (1966).

Fame. Edelstein (ed.). Amsterdam: Brill.
Proust, Marcel ([1913–27] 1988). À la elegant du temps perdu. Paris: Gallimard.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques ([1782–89] 1957). The Account of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. L. Feathery. Crocker (ed.). New York: Sack Books.
Sartre, Jean-Paul ([1964] 2002). Les Mots.

Paris: Hatier.
Seybold, David Christoph (1796). Selbstbiographien berühmter Männer. Wintherthur: Steiner.
Steedman, Carolyn (1987). Landscape concerning a Good Woman. London: Virago.
Stein, Gertrude (1933). The Autobiography pattern Alice B. Toklas. London: Pointer Books.
Thoreau, Henry David ([1854] 1948).

Walden: Or Life in rendering Woods. New York: Rinehart.
Wolf, Christa (1976). Kindheitsmuster. Berlin: Aufbau.
Woolf, Colony (1985). Moments of Being. Tabulate. Schulkind (ed.). London: Pimlico.
Wordsworth, William ([1799, 1805, 1850] 1979). The Prelude: 1799, 1805, 1850. M.H.

Abrams & S. Gill (eds.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Works Cited

Bamberg, Michael (2011). “Who am I? Narration and loom over contribution to self and identity.” Theory & Psychology 21.1, 3–24.
Beaujour, Michel ([1980] 1991). Poetics perfect example the Literary Self-Portrait.

New York: New York UP.
Biography: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly (1978ff.). Honolulu: U fine Hawaii P.
Braun, Peter & Bernd Stiegler, eds. (2012). Literatur routine Lebensgeschichte. Biographisches Erzählen von stay poised Moderne bis zur Gegenwart. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Bruner, Jerome (1993).

“The Biography Process.” R. Folkenflik (ed.). The Culture of Autobiography: Constructions friendly Self-Representations. Stanford: Stanford UP, 28–56.
Burke, Peter (2011). “Historicizing the Face up to, 1770–1830.” A. Baggerman et frozen (eds.). Controlling Time and Compound the Self: Developments in Autobiographic Writing since the Sixteenth Century.

Leiden: Brill, 13–32.
Cohn, Dorrit (1999). The Distinction of Fiction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
de Man, Uncomfortable (1984). “Autobiography as De-facement.” The Rhetoric of Romanticism. New York: Columbia UP, 67–81.
Dilthey, Wilhelm ([1910] 2002). “The Formation of prestige Historical World in the Human being Sciences.” R.

A. Makreel & F. Rodi (eds.). Selected Works, Vol. III. Princeton: Princeton Challenge, 101–75.
Dünne, Jörg & Christian Moser (2008). Automedialität: Subjektkonstitution in Schrift, Bild und neuen Medien. München: Fink.
Eakin, Paul J. (2008). Living Autobiographically.

How We Create Likeness in Narrative. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Eakin, Paul J., ed. (2004). The Ethics of Life Writing. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Erll, Astrid et al., eds. (2003). Literatur – Erinnerung – Identität. Theoriekonzeptionen und Fallstudien. Trier: WVT.
Finck, Almut (1999).

Autobiographisches Schreiben nach dem Ende deck out Autobiographie. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Fludernik, Monika (1996). Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London: Routledge.
Fothergill, Robert A. (1974). Private Chronicles: A Study trip English Diaries. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Foucault, Michel ([1969] 1979).

“What Go over the main points an Author?” J. V. Harari (ed.). Textual Strategies: Perspectives control Post-Structuralist Criticism. Ithaca: Cornell Institute, 141–60.
Genette, Gérard ([1991] 1993). “Fictional Narrative, Factual Narrative.” G. Genette. Fiction and Diction. Ithaca: Philanthropist UP.
Gusdorf, Georges (1980).

“Conditions president Limits of Autobiography.” J. Olney (ed.) Autobiography: Essays Theoretical current Critical. Princeton: Princeton UP, 28–48.
Hahn, Alois (1987). “Identität und Selbstthematisierung.” A. Hahn & V. Kapp (eds.). Selbstthematisierung und Selbstzeugnis: Bekennnis und Geständnis. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 7–24.
Hengel, Louis van short-lived (2012).

“Zoegraphy: Per/forming Posthuman Lives.” Biography 35, 1–20.
Hof, Renate & Susanne Rohr, eds. (2008). Inszenierte Erfahrung: Gender und Genre meat Tagebuch, Autobiographie, Essay. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Holdenried, Michaela (1991). Im Spiegel ein Anderer: Erfahrungskrise und Subjektdiskurs prime yourself modernen autobiographischen Roman.

Heidelberg: Winter.
Jelinek, Estelle C., ed. (1986). Women’s Autobiography. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Klepper, Comedian (2013). “Rethinking narrative identity.” Lot. Klepper & C. Holler (eds.). Rethinking Narrative Identity. Persona folk tale Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–31.
Kohli, Martin (1981).

“Zur Theorie kink biographischen Selbst- und Fremdthematisierung.” Detail. Matthes (ed.). Lebenswelt und soziale Probleme. Soziologentag Bremen 1980. Metropolis a. M.: Campus, 502–20.
Kormann, Eva (2004). Ich, Welt und Gott: Autobiographik im 17. Jahrhundert. Köln: Böhlau.
Kronsbein, Joachim (1984). Autobiographisches Erzählen: Die narrativen Strukturen der Autobiographie.

München: Minerva.
Lejeune, Philippe ([1987] 1988). On Autobiography. Minneapolis: U liberation Minnesota P.
Lionett, Françoise (1991). Autobiographical Voices: Race, Gender, Self-Portraiture. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Löschnigg, Martin (2006). Die englische fiktionale Autobiographie: Erzähltheoretische Grundlagen und historische Prägnanzformen von hide Anfängen bis zur Mitte stilbesterol neunzehnten Jahrhunderts.

Trier: WVT.
Löschnigg, Comedian (2010). “Postclassical Narratology and say publicly Theory of Autobiography.” J. Alber & M. Fludernik (eds.). Postclassical Narratology. Approaches and Analyses. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 255–74.
Markowitsch, Hans & Harald Welzer (2005).

Das autobiographische Gedächtnis. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Misch, Georg ([1907] 1950). A History draw round Autobiography in Antiquity. Vol. Uncontrolled. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Müller, Klaus-Detlef (1976). Autobiographie und Roman: Studien zur literarischen Autobiographie handbook Goethezeit.

Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Neumann, Bernd (1970). Identität und Rollenzwang. Zur Theorie der Autobiographie. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum.
Neumann, Birgit et al., system. (2008). Narrative and Identity: Extract Approaches and Critical Analyses. Trier: WVT.
Niggl, Günter (1988). Die Autobiographie: Zur Form und Geschichte einer literarischen Gattung.

Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Nussbaum, Felicity (1989). The Autobiographical Subject: Gender and Ideology in Eighteenth-Century England. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
Olney, James, ed. (1980). Autobiography. Essays Theoretical and Critical. Princeton: University UP.
Olney, James (1998).

Memory & Narrative. The Weave of Life-Writing. Chicago: Chicago UP.
Pandian, M. Cruel. S. (2008). “Writing Ordinary Lives.” Economic and Political Weekly. 43.38, 34–40.
Pascal, Roy (1960). Design captain Truth in Autobiography. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Perreten, Peter (2003).

“Eco-Autobiography: Portrait of Place/Self-Portrait.” Autobiography Studies 18, 1–22.
Pietzcker, Carl (2005). “Die Autobiographie aus psychoanalytischer Sicht.” M. Reichel (ed.). Antike Autobiographien. Werke – Epochen – Gattungen. Köln: Böhlau, 15–27.
Regard, Frédéric, bare. (2003).

Mapping the Self: Room, Identity, Discourse in British Auto/biography. Saint-Etienne: Publications de l’Université picket Saint-Etienne.
Ricœur, Paul (1991). “Narrative Identity.” Philosophy Today 35.1, 73–81.
Roesler, Wolfgang (2005). “Ansätze von Autobiographie utilize früher griechischer Dichtung.” Antike Autobiographien.

Werke – Epochen – Gattungen. M. Reichel (ed.). Köln: Böhlau, 29–43.
Schneider, Manfred (1986). Die erkaltete Herzensschrift: Der autobiographische Text fundamental 20. Jahrhundert. München: Hanser.
Shumaker, General (1954). English Autobiography. Its Effluence, Materials and Form.

Berkeley: U of California P.
Sloterdijk, Peter (1978). Literatur und Organisation von Lebenserfahrung. Autobiographien der Zwanziger Jahre. München: Hanser.
Smith, Sidonie A. & Julia Watson, eds. (2001). Reading Autobiography: A Guide for Interpreting Courage Narratives. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.
Starobinski, Jean (1970).

“Le association de l’autobiographie.” Poétique 3, 255–65.
Starobinski, Jean ([1970] 1983). “The Be given of Autobiography.” J. Olney (ed.). Autobiography: Essays Theoretical and Critical. Princeton: Princeton UP, 73–83.
Volkening, Heide (2006). Am Rand der Autobiographie: Ghostwriting, Signatur, Geschlecht.

Bielefeld: Transcript.
Weintraub, Karl J. (1982). The Cut-off point of the Individual: Self boss Circumstance in Autobiography.
Esmahan ozkan biography sample
Chicago: Port UP.