CHAPTER 1

Introduction: From Autofiction

to the Autofictional

Alexandra Effe and Hannie Lawlor

The apparent simplicity of the etymology of “autofiction”—designating

texts that have something to do with the self and with fiction—is belied by
the proliferation of meanings and practices with which it is associated.
Critical writing on autofiction will usually mention one or more of the fol-
lowing characteristics, all of which can characterize autofictional texts, but
none of which is unique or defining: a combination of real and invented
elements; onomastic correspondence between author and character or
narrator; and stylistic and linguistic experimentation. Where critics or the-
orists focus more on the context of production and reception, we also find
references to a double pact—autobiographical and fictional—or to a com-
bination of, or oscillation between, reading modes. Perhaps the only thing
on which everyone can agree is indeed that basic etymological claim: auto-
fiction has something to do with the self and with fiction. But even this

A. Effe (*)
University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
e-mail: [email protected]
H. Lawlor
Exeter College, Oxford, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2022 1

A. Effe, H. Lawlor (eds.), The Autofictional, Palgrave Studies in
Life Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78440-9_1
2 A. EFFE AND H. LAWLOR

seems to be up for debate, as several recent autofictional practitioners have

proclaimed a turn away from fiction. Sheila Heti, for example, has said that
she is “[i]ncreasingly […] less interested in writing about fictional people,
because it seems so tiresome to make up a fake person and put them
through the paces of a fake story” (Heti 2007). Heti’s lack of interest in
invented people does not equate to a rejection of any form of fictionality,
of course, but it nonetheless puts strain on the term “autofiction.” So too
does Rachel Cusk’s comment, in a review essay on Yiyun Li’s work, that,
while the denominator “novel” has become a norm for autofictional texts,
this is difficult to justify, “especially when the work cannot be understood
without its autobiographical basis” (2019).
The impossibility of reaching a satisfactory consensus on the definition
of autofiction prompts arguments that it is best to dispose of the term
altogether, to replace it with “life writing,” perhaps with the addition of a
modifier such as “experimental” or “hybrid.” It quickly becomes appar-
ent, however, that such labels do little to delineate the specific kinds of
hybridity and experimentalism we find in autofictional texts, and would
hence lose the conceptual focus that “autofiction” provides. The term is
clearly problematic, possibly flawed, which may have to do with Serge
Doubrovsky’s coining it in passing to describe one particular book, Fils
(1977). Doubrovsky himself clearly felt that it needed further develop-
ment, having proposed various descriptions of autofiction in the course of
his career (see, e.g., Dix 2018, 2–5; and Wagner-Egelhaaf, this volume).
Many other writers, critics, and theorists have since contributed to revis-
ing, fine-tuning, and often also challenging autofiction as a concept—a
process that began in French criticism and then spread more widely. The
term and concept are now firmly established in German-language,
Anglophone, and Scandinavian criticism (for an overview of the term’s
development, see, for instance, Jones 2010; Ferreira-Meyers 2018), but
has not yet caught on globally, as we will see in the discussion of Egyptian
literature and literary criticism in this volume (Chap. 11). Autofiction, it
seems, requires continuous reconsideration in order to accommodate the
variety of texts that writers, critics, and readers feel should be discussed
under the label. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, autofiction as term,
concept, and literary practice persists and is thriving more than ever.
A recent issue of The Times Literary Supplement speaks of a current
“fashion for autofiction” and features an article by Alice Attlee, in which
she acknowledges the “booming popularity of autofiction,” as well as the
difficulty of defining it as a genre, claiming that “it requires if not a new,
 1 INTRODUCTION: FROM AUTOFICTION TO THE AUTOFICTIONAL 3

then a reconsidered, critical response” (2019). Armine Kotin Mortimer

(2009, 22) proclaimed over ten years ago that a “consensus definition has
become impossible,” and perceives “a collective will to blur the boundar-
ies of the genre as much as possible: the more fluid the definition, the
happier the collective thinking is.” Hywel Dix, too, begins his 2018 edited
volume on Autofiction in English by stressing “that there is no single defi-
nition of autofiction either in English or in French” (2). Dix also reminds
us, however, in a comparison with the history of the concept of intertex-
tuality, that the development and extension of applications of a term need
not mean loss of meaning or imprecision. Rather, they can be taken posi-
tively as “symptoms of a rich, vibrant and expanding field” (9). The intro-
ductory text to the website autofiction.org, dedicated to the discussion of
the concept and of autofictional texts, offers a similarly optimistic descrip-
tion of autofiction’s indefinability:

Autofiction has established itself as one of the most open and lively fields in
contemporary literature. It is a complex notion to define, connected to the
author’s defiance with regard to autobiography, romans à clef, the con-
straints or illusions of transparency; a notion that is enhanced by its many
extensions even as it robustly resists the incessant attacks to which it is sub-
jected. (autofiction.org, n.d.; our translation)

This volume embraces the openness of autofiction as a concept, as well as

the critical dialogue it has inspired. The chapters, both individually and
collectively, offer innovative responses to a continuously flourishing liter-
ary phenomenon. These responses include reflections from several critics
who have contributed substantially to shaping our understanding of auto-
fiction in recent years, and who offer new perspectives here, as well as
contributions from new voices that expand on and challenge established
approaches.
The shift from the noun and genre-descriptor “autofiction” to the
adjective “autofictional,” in this study’s title, creates the necessary flexibil-
ity for extending and revising our understanding of the concept. While
some individual chapters do propose possible definitions of autofiction,
including new subcategories of autofictional texts, the volume as a whole
does not aim to arrive at a uniform definition, and much less to impose
one. Instead, it expressly extends the texts and phenomena that can be
considered autofictional and fosters a dialogue between a range of differ-
ent approaches and case studies in order to foreground the diversity of
4 A. EFFE AND H. LAWLOR

autofictional practice and criticism. It explores the autofictional as a mode,

moment, and strategy that can appear in a variety of texts across time. As
part of this cross-disciplinary approach, the volume considers how autofic-
tional strategies relate to, work in, and work with different text types and
media, such as photography, film, the diary, and the self-portrait. There is
a strong focus, moreover, on the effects, or potential effects, of autofic-
tional techniques, signals, and structures within a given literary work, as
well as on its context of production and reception.
This approach allows us to bring into view texts, forms, and media that
have not traditionally been considered in the light of their autofictional
dimensions, to illustrate the many affordances of autofiction as theoretical
lens and aesthetic strategy, and to propose new ways of exploring autofic-
tional writing and its surrounding structures. Authors in this study do
speak of autofiction as a genre but also of modes of autofictional writing
and modes of autofictional reading, of an autofictional sense of self and of
an autofictional approach to self-presentation, of how texts create and
enhance a sense of the autofictional, and of degrees of autofictionality. The
different chapters feature many major names that commonly arise in dis-
cussions of autofiction (including Doubrovsky, Annie Ernaux, Hervé
Guibert, Christine Angot, Felicitas Hoppe, Jenny Diski, Philip Roth,
Cusk, Olivia Laing, Siri Hustvedt, Ben Lerner, and Karl Ove Knausgaard)
but also draw our attention to the autofictional dimensions of texts which
have barely featured, if at all, in the conversation to date. The latter include
precursors—writers who developed autofictional techniques before
Doubrovsky’s coinage of the term, including Johann Wolfgang von
Goethe, Dorothy Richardson, Virginia Woolf, Claude Cahun, and Doris
Lessing—and contemporary authors who are more typically discussed
under headings such as postcolonialism or cosmopolitanism rather than
autofiction, including Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Justin Cartwright.
Certainly, this volume’s extension of the concept of autofiction means
a broad application, perhaps too broad for the likings of some, but the
chapters assembled here demonstrate what is gained from an encompass-
ing approach of this kind. It sparks a productive discussion of the phenom-
ena that cluster around a certain kind of text, one that remains difficult to
pin down not least because a dominant (but again, by no means defining)
characteristic of autofictional writing is that it challenges conventions,
resisting traditional autobiographical and novelistic modes but also con-
stantly reinventing itself.
 1 INTRODUCTION: FROM AUTOFICTION TO THE AUTOFICTIONAL 5

It is through the volume’s broadening of the parameters of the term

and concept that the diversity and global range of autofictional practice
becomes apparent. As the conversation on autofiction thus far has taken
place principally in Western Europe and North America, the case studies
that typically take center stage are from these same traditions. French,
Anglophone, German, and Scandinavian texts make up the most iconic
examples, as critics and authors reflect on, and clash over, the application
of “autofiction” as a genre label; works by Knausgaard, Angot, and Hoppe
have triggered some of the more public and virulent of these debates. In
each of these contexts, autofictional practice has proliferated together with
the term’s increasing embeddedness in critical discourse. The state of the
field elsewhere in Europe, however, and indeed globally, varies consider-
ably. Despite Spain’s geographical and cultural proximity to France,
Spanish texts have featured very infrequently to date in international dis-
cussions on the autofictional (see, e.g., Manuel Alberca 2007). Likewise,
in Italy, while Elena Ferrante’s “Neapolitan Novels” have recently received
attention as an example of “autofiction,” there is certainly a need for fur-
ther investigation of Italian autofictional works. Lucia Boldrini and Julia
Novak, in their volume Experiments in Autobiography: Intersections of
Auto/Biography and Fiction (2017), make strides in including case studies
from European countries that are typically underrepresented in discus-
sions of life writing, referring to Spanish, Italian, and Austrian literature,
although only Spanish Mexican author Jordi Soler’s work is discussed
explicitly as an autofictional experiment. An important body of work is
slowly emerging on autofictional practices in other European countries (to
give two examples, Lut Missinne discusses Dutch autofictional works
[2013, 2019] and Stavrini Ioannidou’s doctoral thesis has put forward a
case for the existence of autofiction in Greek literature even before the
emergence of the term [2013]). The website autofiction.org provides
helpful, albeit inevitably selective and incomplete, lists of autofictional
works from Latin America, the Caribbean, the Arab world, and Africa.
Although these are important steps toward broadening our perception of
autofictional texts, they also show that there is clearly still much need for
a more inclusive perspective and much room for future research.
In The Autofictional, we take a further step toward a more global per-
spective by shining a light on select underrepresented practices, traditions,
and cultures, both within and outside of Europe, and by putting these into
dialogue with the more established traditions. This volume does not only
establish the presence of the autofictional in other cultures, forms, and
6 A. EFFE AND H. LAWLOR

media but also demonstrates how the inclusion of these diverse examples
challenges and develops current conceptions of the autofictional. The
Handbook of Autobiography/Autofiction (2019), edited by Martina
Wagner-­Egelhaaf, is pioneering in providing an overview of autobiograph-
ical practices across the globe and in different media. The present volume
instigates a dialogue between several case studies and forms that the hand-
book brings into view, with a specific focus on the autofictional, rather
than on autobiographical life-writing practices more generally. It addresses,
for example, the correspondences between autofiction and the Japanese
tradition of the I-novel, the function of the autofictional in documentary
cinema and that of the diary in the autofictional, and vice versa. The vol-
ume considers the affordance of autofictional techniques in contemporary
South African self-portraiture and the potential role that the incorporation
of the term could play in the reception of life writing in the Arabic tradi-
tion. As well as establishing possible connections between these cultures,
forms, and media, this dialogue also testifies to the very different ways in
which the autofictional functions across different places and times.
To date, few studies on autofiction have attempted to start this kind of
conversation. Dix’s Autofiction in English addresses cultural specificities,
asking whether the concept is applied in the same way in Anglophone
works as it is in the French context, or whether the concept itself changes
and evolves upon entering new cultural contexts (2018, 9). He concludes
that certain characteristics play a more conspicuous role in the British tra-
dition than they do in the French: these include intersubjectivity, seriality,
metafiction, and intertextuality, as well as attention to the therapeutic pos-
sibilities of the act of writing. Karen Ferreira-Meyers notes in addition
that, in the Anglophone world, autofiction is perceived primarily as a
mode rather than as a genre (2018, 41). Laura Marcus’s contribution to
the present volume further develops such comparisons by demonstrating
that French autofictional works exhibit features that are not as prevalent in
British ones, particularly the prominent intersection of photography and
narrative. In this volume, the French tradition remains a crucial part of the
discussion and an important reference point in many of the chapters, but
it is brought into dialogue with a broad range of traditions, with the effect
of reshaping, expanding, and enriching our understanding of the
autofictional.

***
 1 INTRODUCTION: FROM AUTOFICTION TO THE AUTOFICTIONAL 7

In light of the recognition that “autofiction” as a term is problematic and

that a consensus definition is neither attainable nor necessarily desirable,
Part I of this study considers how we might find new, productive ways of
approaching autofiction and the autofictional. Wagner-Egelhaaf opens
with “Five Theses on Autofiction/the Autofictional,” and her first thesis
is one on which this volume’s overall approach is based; namely, that we
still need the term and that the critical discussion which surrounds it is of
value for how it continuously challenges us to reconsider the concept and
the texts we discuss in relation to it. She shows the advantages of an open
and flexible understanding of the autofictional as a conceptual matrix with
scalable parameters. From this perspective we see the autofictional as a
latent dimension of autobiographical writing in general (her second thesis)
and understand that imagined and supernatural elements can support
autobiographical reference (her third thesis) and that there is an oscillation
between fictionality and factuality in autofictional texts (her fifth thesis).
Her approach is rooted in a performative understanding of writing, which
becomes most evident in her fourth thesis when she elaborates on the
“Strange Loops and Real Effects” of her chapter’s title: she considers how
art and life cross-influence one another insofar as the fictional affects our
perception of the real, and shows this to be true not only for her contem-
porary examples (Doubrovsky, Knausgaard, Hoppe, and Thomas Glavinic)
but also for Goethe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
In an important response to the problematics inherent in the combina-
tion of the constituents “auto” and “fiction,” Alison James asks what
exactly is “The Fictional in Autofiction.” She shows in a discussion of
works by Ernaux, Cusk, Laing, Knausgaard, Christophe Boltanski, and
Camille Laurens how narratological and rhetorical theories of fictionality
can help discern different forms and degrees of fictionality in autofictional
texts, thus enabling us to better understand the workings of this type of
writing, and how autofictional practice in turn helps refine theories of fic-
tion and fictionality. James proposes, for example, the important distinc-
tion between fictionality and fictionalization, the latter term describing
the transposition of real-life elements into fictional form. Finally, her
approach brings to light the various effects that distinct configurations of
the interplay of fact and fiction in autofictional texts can create, a dimen-
sion subsequently explored in more detail in the chapters by Alexandra
Effe and Alison Gibbons, and by Arnaud Schmitt, as well as throughout
Part II of this volume.
8 A. EFFE AND H. LAWLOR

Effe and Gibbons offer a “Cognitive Perspective on Autofictional

Writing, Texts, and Reading.” They argue for the necessity of considering
textual signposts in combination with the cognitive-affective dynamics of
production and reception of a given text. They note that existing accounts
of autofictional writing and reading rely primarily on the conjectures of
individual critics, and propose that we should consider instead how authors
themselves describe their acts of autofictionalization, and what we can
surmise about readers’ responses on the basis of empirical research into
textual processing. Effe and Gibbons approach the three constituents of
their holistic approach through data from self-reports by the three authors
of their case studies (Roth, Laing, and Lerner), through empirical, psy-
chological studies into differences between fictional and factual reading
modes, and through close textual analysis of the formal makeup of The
Facts (1988), Crudo (2018), and 10:04 (2014). They simultaneously
extend and fine-tune definitions of autofiction by offering definitions of
autofictional modes of writing and autofictional modes of reading. Their
focus on both author and reader, and on psychological motivations and
cognitive effects, allows them to show potential affordances and effects of
autofictional modes, thus looking ahead to those illustrated in Part II.
Schmitt suggests moving away from trying to define what autofiction is
and toward describing how it works, that is, toward “The Pragmatics of
Autofiction.” Taking up an example from the previous chapter—Lerner’s
10:04—and adding Siri Hustvedt’s Memories of the Future (2019), he pro-
vides us with helpful terminological distinctions for approaching the work-
ings of autofictional texts with more precision, specifically for describing
which textual and paratextual elements invite an autofictional reading. He
distinguishes between primary, necessary characteristics and secondary,
supplementary ones. Without onomastic correspondence—which in auto-
fictional texts often takes the form of a first name or initials, thus simulta-
neously inviting and resisting the identification of author and
character—autofiction, in his understanding of the term, cannot exist.
Recognizing that, while this criterion may be necessary, it is not sufficient
in and of itself as autofiction ultimately depends on the reader, Schmitt
argues that autofiction really only exists if readers make the connections
between author and character that the text offers and find them fruitful.
Other characteristics such as metafictional elements, the foregrounding of
the fallibility of memory (thematically and through narrative strategies),
and apostrophic addresses to readers are not absolutely necessary but
enhance the sense of the autofictional (hence his designation of them as
 1 INTRODUCTION: FROM AUTOFICTION TO THE AUTOFICTIONAL 9

“enhancers”). Overall, the chapter foregrounds the importance of peritex-

tual but also epitextual material in the reception of texts as autofictional.
The latter becomes crucial in particular for the application of the concept
to texts not previously or usually discussed under the label of “autofic-
tion,” such as the postcolonial and Egyptian texts in Chaps. 10 and 11.
Part I closes with Ricarda Menn and Melissa Schuh’s chapter on how to
approach “The Autofictional in Serial, Literary Works.” They take up
Doubrovsky’s focus (in his initial definition of the term “autofiction”) on
the fragmentation of the self in order to pay more attention to the incom-
pleteness that is characteristic of autofictional projects. Menn and Schuh
therefore invite us to consider how this takes form in serialized publica-
tions and show what it means to consider an author’s entire oeuvre or a
series of works as a dynamic site of self-expression and as an autofictional
act. They propose considering serial, literary autofiction as a distinct sub-
category of autofictional texts, and distinguish between different forms of
seriality. With reference to texts ranging from the early twentieth to the
twenty-first century—Richardson’s Pilgrimage (1915–1938), Lessing’s
autobiographical, fictional, and hybrid works, and Cusk’s Outline trilogy
(2014–2018)—they show how serial publications and structures challenge
autobiographical unity and coherence, and how, in so doing, they produc-
tively interconnect with, and enhance, these thematic and representational
concerns in autofictional texts. They argue that autofictional and serialized
forms of self-writing present a discontinuous, non-linear, contingent, and
multi-faceted sense of self—what we might, in other words, call an auto-
fictional sense of self.
Each of the five chapters in Part I offers a distinct, and distinctly new,
way of approaching the autofictional. The connections and variations
between them come to light in the overlaps in the selection of authors and
texts discussed. For instance, we see Lerner’s 10:04 approached with a
cognitive perspective on autofictional modes of writing and reading, and
with a focus on pragmatic ways of signaling ambiguity over the proximity
between author and character. We consider Cusk’s Outline trilogy with
regard to the question of what precisely is fictional and fictionalized in this
work, and from the angle of her serial form of self-presentation; and we are
invited to think about what kind of fact/fiction configuration is at play in
Laing’s Crudo, as well as about the potential cognitive affordances her act
of autofictionalization has for her and for her readers. By rethinking the
theoretical and methodological bounds of what is autofictional and how
we can study it, this part of the volume opens up the discussion to the
10 A. EFFE AND H. LAWLOR

wide spectrum of forms and contexts of the autofictional that are explored
in the remainder of the volume.
Part II considers the affordances and effects of autofiction as a literary
strategy. Examining the autofictional as both a writing and reading tech-
nique, the chapters focus on what is gained from the application and
extension of the term, and from the adoption of autofictional practices.
Hanna Meretoja shows, under the title of “Metanarrative Autofiction,”
how what she views as a new twenty-first-century subgenre of autofic-
tional texts affords new perspectives on, and has the potential to heighten,
the collective narrative agency of readers and writers. She understands by
“metanarrativity” a kind of self-reflexive storytelling that critically engages
with larger cultural narrative templates and their role in how we make
sense of our lives. Using the examples of Ernaux’s Les Années (The Years)
(2008), Knausgaard’s Min kamp (My Struggle) (2009–2011), and Finnish
singer-songwriter Astrid Swan’s Viimeinen kirjani (2019, My Last Book),
Meretoja illustrates how the texts comment on and offer alternatives to
existing master-narratives about aging, illness, masculinity, or fatherhood.
Autofictional texts, she shows, are particularly well placed to alert us to the
ways in which our lives and our self-understanding are determined by
dominant and normative cultural narrative models. They also help us to
challenge these narratives, and to actively choose the ones we use to inter-
pret our lives and selves because autofiction often pivots on the relation
between what is real and what is imaginary, and on the relation between
our lives and their narrativization.
Helle Egendal continues the exploration of the affordance of the auto-
fictional for exposing normative social models in “Multilingual Autofiction:
Mobilizing Language(s).” She argues that in post-migrant literature pub-
lished since the 1990s, a new mode, multilingual autofiction, has emerged
that highlights and resists the monocultural assumptions shaping the social
and political context in which the respective texts are published. Her three
case studies, written by German-Turkish, Swedish-Tunisian, and Danish-­
Palestinian authors, demonstrate that this mode transverses different
countries and cultures. Egendal considers both the aesthetic scope and the
political potential of this autofictional mode, in which the authors use
polyphony and polyglossia to express and negotiate their multilingual
identities. The flexibility and diversity that the autofictional affords in this
respect is further mobilized in these texts to penetrate political discourses
on migration, transculturality, and racism. By considering the reception of
 1 INTRODUCTION: FROM AUTOFICTION TO THE AUTOFICTIONAL 11

these texts and the public engagement of their authors, Egendal directs
our focus to the political and social affordances of the autofictional.
Turning our attention to the autofictional in the visual arts, Ferreira-­
Meyers and Bontle Tau continue the discussion of social affordances in
“Visual Autofiction: A Strategy for Cultural Inclusion.” They argue that
the autofictional is being employed in the creative practice of contempo-
rary South African artists to initiate cultural inclusion within a field that
has historically favored European visual narratives and excluded many oth-
ers. Focusing on Tau’s self-portrait photography, they explore the ways in
which the autofictional enables a practice of self-narration which is ever-­
changing in terms of the viewpoints adopted and offered. The role-playing
and constant repositioning of selves and stories that autofictional tech-
niques afford offers a means through which artists can figuratively insert
themselves into the Western tradition of portraiture: Tau assumes the clas-
sical postures in which white, Western women have typically been repre-
sented, and in so doing highlights the virtual absence of black protagonists
in the canon. Ferreira-Meyers and Tau consider how autofictional self-­
portraiture highlights the skewed nature of representation in this tradi-
tion, and how it might better accommodate the diversity of selves and
stories of creative practitioners.
Dix’s chapter “Autofiction, Post-conflict Narratives, and New Memory
Cultures” demonstrates the affordance of autofictional techniques for cre-
ating new forms of public commemoration. This affordance is utilized in
particular, he argues, by contemporary postcolonial writers in post-­conflict
societies. Focusing on Adichie’s Half of a Yellow Sun (2006) and
Cartwright’s Up Against the Night (2015), Dix shows how both texts use
autofictional structures and techniques to forge a form of cultural memory
of the Nigerian Biafran War of 1967–1970 and of the massacre of Zulus
by Boers in 1838, respectively. In both cases, this form of cultural memory
is simultaneously individual (albeit concerning events before the authors’
lifetime) and collective, and aspires to post-conflict reconciliation. Dix’s
analysis foregrounds the importance of the context of reception and of the
paratextual and intertextual signals that invite autofictional readings in the
absence of onomastic correspondence. His analysis of Adichie’s and
Cartwright’s works through an autofictional lens enables an enriched
understanding of their effects and of how these are engendered—an
understanding achieved through his extension of the term.
Hala Kamal, Fatma Atef Massoud, and Zainab Magdy subsequently
explore this extension of the term in “Autofiction as a Lens for Reading
12 A. EFFE AND H. LAWLOR

Contemporary Egyptian Writing.” In a literary tradition where “autofic-

tion” has not yet entered into the critical discourse and life writing is typi-
cally situated within the domain of biographical and historical studies, the
authors demonstrate the affordances of autofiction as a strategy for writing
and reading Egyptian texts. Using three different case studies, Waguih
Ghali’s Beer in the Snooker Club (1964), Radwa Ashour’s Atiaf (Specters)
(1999), and Miral al-Tahawy’s Brooklyn Heights (2010), they consider evi-
dence of autofictional readings in the texts’ reception, how the authors
themselves invite autofictional readings through the use of paratextual
material and self-reflexive commentary, and how the concept of the auto-
fictional might resist the dominant trend in critical reception of reading
women’s writing as being straightforwardly autobiographical. Their read-
ings highlight the insights that adopting the autofictional as a critical lens
can provide into constructions of identity, memory, and experience at the
intersections of reality and the imagination in Egyptian literature.
Together, the chapters in Part II testify to the value of extending the
concept of the autofictional to encompass a variety of texts, traditions, and
cultures. Inviting new kinds of examples and new voices into the discus-
sion brings to light the many dimensions of the autofictional and the reach
of its engagement with narratives of identity beyond the bounds of the
text. The social, political, and literary affordances of autofictional tech-
niques and readings emerge powerfully in these chapters and, as we have
seen, are centrally linked to form. The final section explores in depth the
manifold forms that the autofictional can take and with which it engages,
and some of the diverse media in which it can be found.
Part III of the volume discusses how the autofictional functions in dif-
ferent forms and media (the diary, the Japanese I-novel, the literary self-­
portrait, film, and photography), and how these forms and media work in
turn in autofictional texts. Through the lens of this range of case studies,
the section demonstrates the insights that are gained from the inclusion of
diverse socio-historical, cultural, and political contexts in conversations on
the autofictional. Anna Forné and Patricia López-Gay explore the affor-
dances of autofiction as they emerge in a different medium in “Autofiction
and Film: Archival Practices in Post-Millennial Documentary Cinema in
Argentina and Spain.” Focusing on films that respond to two different
crises, they approach the autofictional as a contemporary cinematic mode
that can unsettle the paradigm of the archive as static evidence of a given
reality. The first part of the chapter engages with the documentary trilogy
Los rubios (The Blonds) (2003), Restos (Remains) (2010), and Cuatreros
 1 INTRODUCTION: FROM AUTOFICTION TO THE AUTOFICTIONAL 13

(Rustlers) (2016), directed by Albertina Carri. Carri’s parents were among

the 30,000 people “disappeared” by the military during the last dictator-
ship in Argentina, and the trilogy reflects on the resulting crisis of memory
construction for the second generation. The second part discusses the self-
reflexive responses of Spanish filmmakers to the Iberian financial crisis in
Mercedes Álvarez’s Mercado de futuros (Futures Market) (2011) and
Víctor Erice’s Vidros partidos: Testes para um filme em Portugal (Broken
Windows: Tests for a Film in Portugal) (2012). In exploring what they
describe as the aesthetics of ambiguity that underpins these films, Forné
and López-Gay demonstrate the ways in which the autofictional reveals
and challenges the generic limits of documentary film, and invites new
reflections on processes of memory construction.
Justyna Kasza turns to a very different cultural context in “Autofiction
and Shisho ̄setsu: Women Writers and Reinventing the Self” to draw out the
relationship between autofiction and another form with which it has not
traditionally been linked: the Japanese I-novel. Kasza notes that the link
between language and the reinvention of the self in literature comes to the
fore in shisho ̄setsu, a form which originates in the lack of a fixed and stable
first-person pronoun in Japanese. Yet, despite the seeming cultural speci-
ficity of this form, shisho ̄setsu has much in common with the autofictional
in its scope for modifying, creating, and re-creating the supposedly unitary
self, as well as with the debates that surround the label. Both concepts
prove elusive in attempts to establish a fixed definition, and both labels are
as often rejected as they are accepted by the authors to whose work they
are applied. Kasza investigates this relationship in depth in relation to
three contemporary women writers: Kanai Mieko, Sagisawa Megumu, and
Mizumura Minae, who use the form to negotiate national, lingual, and
gender identities and to redefine the self. By putting the two forms into
conversation, she shows that shisho ̄setsu exceeds the borders of national
literature and expands the scope of discussions of the autofictional, which
rarely feature Japanese works.
Sam Ferguson proposes that there is also an important, and largely
unexplored, relationship between “Autofiction and the Diary.” He argues
that the diary, a form often perceived as “antifictional,” has in fact played
a key role in shaping the practices of the generation of French autofictional
writers that emerged in the 1990s. Ferguson proposes that there is a shift
in autofiction from its orientation toward autobiographical modes of writ-
ing in the previous generation, visible in Doubrovsky’s work as well as the
work of writers including Roland Barthes, Alain Robbe-Grillet, and
14 A. EFFE AND H. LAWLOR

Marguerite Duras, toward a diaristic mode of writing. He takes Guibert

and Angot to be the key proponents in this reorientation, and through
close analysis of their experimental writing projects in Voyage avec deux
enfants (Journey with Two Children, 1982) and Léonore, toujours (Léonore,
Always, 1993), respectively, he shows how the diary serves as the basis
from which the authors challenge established literary forms and forge new
approaches to writing the self. The dialogue he uncovers between the
diary and the autofictional complicates the modalities of truth, fiction, and
self-representation in both forms.
The final two chapters focus on different forms in the French context,
drawing them into dialogue with British literature. Ben Grant reflects on
the relationship between “Autofiction and Self-Portraiture” in the literary
tradition, as it is defined by Michel Beaujour. The two are united, Grant
argues, in opposing autobiography’s claim to giving a “truthful” account
of its subject, but while autofiction does so primarily by emphasizing fic-
tional constructions of the self, self-portraiture primarily foregrounds the
self’s fragmentary nature. Grant proposes that we should regard self-­
portraiture and autofiction as two poles in life writing, which represent
two different conceptions of the self, but which can coexist with varying
degrees of visibility. He explores this coexistence in the work of British
writer Diski and French author and photographer Cahun, arguing that
while both their oeuvres invite autofictional readings, they should be seen
first and foremost as self-portraitists. Starting from the very different rela-
tionship between narcissism and creativity that emerges in self-portraiture
compared to in autobiographical writing, Grant analyzes the points of
intersection and divergence the two traditions self-portraiture and
autofiction.
Remaining in the field of visual self-representation, Laura Marcus’s
chapter traces the relationship she discerns between “Autofiction and
Photography.” Rather than representing the reflected self, she observes,
visual artist and literary autobiographer alike turn inward to find their self-­
image. Marcus analyzes the ways in which photography has intensified and
reshaped the relationship between memory, image, and text in literary
self-representation. She argues that the connections between life writing,
memory, and photography are at their most prominent in autofictional
works, in which photographs become an important site for their play with
the porous boundary between autobiography and fiction. Her compara-
tive study explores the role that photographs play in negotiating shifting
identities, with a specific focus on images of seeing and mirroring. She
 1 INTRODUCTION: FROM AUTOFICTION TO THE AUTOFICTIONAL 15

turns first to transsexual life-writing texts by Anglophone authors, in

which she sees a striking incidence between photographs and self-­
representation, before considering the relationship between photography
and/as absence in the work of Ernaux. Marcus demonstrates that there is
a compelling link between the intersections of the visual and verbal, pho-
tography and narrative, in these texts and those of the autofictional mode,
and explores the prevalence of this phenomenon in French literature com-
pared with its British counterpart.
As a whole, Part III demonstrates how a comparison of the autofic-
tional across different forms, media, and cultures reveals its diversity,
range, and global reach, and the many shapes it can assume at different
times and in different contexts. The connections uncovered in these com-
parisons offer insight into the function of the autofictional in these literary
and visual forms and media, and into how these work in turn in autofic-
tional texts. Perhaps most importantly, these chapters show, as does the
volume overall, how our understanding of the autofictional, and of its
different forms and affordances, is enhanced when they are approached
from diverse angles and drawn into dialogue.
This dialogue takes place within chapters, within sections, and across
them. Schmitt’s, Effe and Gibbons’s, and Dix’s chapters all underscore the
importance of considering how exactly autofictional texts trigger a certain
kind of reading, and to what effect. Menn and Schuh investigate how
these effects can be created across a series of works, and this serial staging
of the self in autofictional writing resonates with the visual staging of the
self in different guises and across time that Ferreira-Meyers and Tau
explore. Their contribution on self-portrait photography speaks to Grant’s
chapter on literary self-portraiture, and together the visual and the literary
tradition serve as the starting point for Marcus’s analysis of the role of
photographs in autofictional texts. Ferguson draws a parallel between the
symbolic attachment to the truth that the photograph represents and the
role of the diary in developing this French autofictional practice. The pro-
ductive, yet paradoxical, relationship that transpires between these two
forms invites comparison, too, with Kasza’s exploration of autofiction and
shisho ̄setsu, a form considered to be rooted in the specifics of the Japanese
language, but whose scope is shown through this comparison to be
much wider.
That the dialogue between autofiction and shishōsetsu invites us to
rethink our understanding of both forms testifies to the gains of an
expanded concept of autofiction and the autofictional for critical
16 A. EFFE AND H. LAWLOR

readings. The new insights that autofiction as a critical lens affords are
prominent in Kamal, Massoud, and Magdy’s discussion of Egyptian life
writing. An important insight gained in their application of autofiction
as a concept to Arab literature is that autofiction’s affordances are not
only literary and critical but also political and social, a perspective that
emerges powerfully in Egendal’s study of transcultural autobiographical
literature, in Dix’s discussion of postcolonial texts in post-conflict societ-
ies, and in Forné and López-Gay’s exploration of Argentinian and
Spanish documentary cinema. All three of these chapters illustrate the
potential that Meretoja describes for the autofictional to challenge domi-
nant cultural narrative models. This grounds the practice’s real-world
relevance, which comes to the fore in Wagner-Egelhaaf ’s discussion of
Doubrovsky’s autofictional works. Effe and Gibbons’s holistic and cog-
nitive approach to autofictional texts, and modes of writing and reading,
offers a new way of substantiating our critical hypotheses on such real-
life effects. In the volume’s various extensions and modifications of term
and concept, James’s chapter helps us to differentiate between the kinds
of fictionalization and modes of fictionality we find in different autofic-
tional texts.

***

Across the chapters, we see autofictional practice and criticism take many
different shapes, and it is on these differences as much as on the intersec-
tions between chapters and approaches that this volume’s contribution is
based. The volume sets out to expand the concept with a view to creating
a heterogeneous, malleable, and ongoing discourse on the autofictional.
Our hope is that, in the reading of this volume, many more connections
and comparisons will be made, and many more conversations on the auto-
fictional will take place. Overall, the volume offers the kind of “reconsid-
ered, critical response” that Attlee calls for in her recent article on
autofiction. Perhaps, as the conversation develops, we will turn more
toward the pragmatics of autofiction, and adopt a holistic and cognitive
perspective, focusing on how, why, and in which contexts authors write
texts that readers perceive as autofictional. Perhaps we will pay more atten-
tion to autofictional strategies and structures as they emerge across an
author’s oeuvre, or in intertextual relations between parts of a series.
Perhaps we will be more open to recognizing autofictional moments in
 1 INTRODUCTION: FROM AUTOFICTION TO THE AUTOFICTIONAL 17

works that do not seem to fit the generic category, as well as in media
other than literature: visual art, photography, painting, and film, to name
but a few. Perhaps, in adopting this more encompassing approach, we will
be receptive to the ways in which our understanding of texts from coun-
tries and literary traditions where autofiction does not (yet) exist as a con-
cept changes if we approach them through an autofictional lens, and to
how such texts can, in turn, enrich and transform our understanding of
autofiction and the autofictional.

Works Cited
Alberca, Manuel. 2007. El pacto ambiguo: De la novela autobiográfica a la autofic-
ción. Colección Estudios Críticos de Literatura 30. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
Attlee, Alice. 2019. Fiction of Facts. Times Literary Supplement, May 9, 2019.
https://www.the-­tls.co.uk/articles/autofiction-­fiction-­of-­facts/. Accessed
5 Apr 2021.
autofiction.org. n.d. Présentation. https://www.autofiction.org/index.
php?category/Accueil. Accessed 5 Apr 2021.
Boldrini, Lucia, and Julia Novak, eds. 2017. Experiments in Life-Writing:
Intersections of Auto/Biography and Fiction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cusk, Rachel. 2019. “The Case of Yiyun Li.” Review of Dear Friend, from My
Life I Write to You in your Life and When Reasons End. New York Review of
Books, July 18, 2019.
Dix, Hywel. 2018. Introduction: Autofiction in English: The Story So Far. In
Autofiction in English, ed. Hywel Dix, 1–23. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ferreira-Meyers, Karen. 2018. Does Autofiction Belong to French or Francophone
Authors and Readers Only? In Autofiction in English, ed. Hywel Dix, 27–48.
Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heti, Sheila. 2007. “Interview with David Hickey.” Interview by Sheila Heti. The
Believer, November 1, 2007. https://believermag.com/an-­interview-­with-­
dave-­hickey/. Accessed 5 Apr 2021.
Ioannidou, Stavrini. 2013. Autofiction à la grecque: Greek Autobiographical
Fiction (1971–1995), PhD diss., King’s College, University of London.
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/12691039/Studentthesis-­Stavrini_
Ioannidou_2013.pdf. Accessed 7 Apr 2021.
Jones, Elizabeth H. 2010. Autofiction: A Brief History of a Neologism. In Life
Writing: Essays on Autobiography, Biography and Literature, ed. Richard
Bradford, 174–184. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Missinne, Lut. 2013. Oprecht gelogen: Autobiografische romans en autofictie in de
Nederlandse literatuur na 1985. Vantilt: Nijmegen.
18 A. EFFE AND H. LAWLOR

Missinne, Lut. 2019. “Jeroen Brouwers: Bezonken Rood (1981) [Sunken Red].”
In Autobiography/Autofiction: An International and Interdisciplinary
Handbook, edited by Martina Wagner-Egelhaaf, 1930–1945. Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Mortimer, Armine Kotin. 2009. Autofiction as Allofiction: Doubrovsky’s ‘L’Après-­
vivre.’. L‘Esprit Créateur 49 (3): 22–35.
Wagner-Egelhaaf, Martina, ed. 2019. Handbook of Autobiography/Autofiction.
Vol. 3. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the
chapter’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to
the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence
and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copy-
right holder.