592 FIELD

The 592 field is divided up into two main subfields. The first, $a, denotes the dominant narrative form of the text. The second subfield, $b, is what we call the "contains" field: it indicates if there are any other narrative forms within the volume that are not expressed in $a. This categorical system has proven itself useful in many cases. If there is a book that is written completely in letters, for example, but between the different letters there is third-person narration, we would categorize the book as such:

592. $a: Epistolary $b: Third-person

And then to further explain, we could include a general note field, $x:

592. $a: Epistolary $b: Third-person $x: The novel is epistolary, but third-person narration is present between each epistle.

In this situation, our dominant narrative form/contains subfield system is quite useful: $b allows and highlights narratorial exceptions, while $a honors the preeminance of the dominant narrative form.

Another useful characteristic of our categorical system is that we do not have to impose a narratorial hierarchy on the text if we do not feel that it is truly present. We can do this by either creating more than one $a (thus claiming that there is more than one dominant narrative form within the volume), or abstaining from using $a and instead only using $b (which scraps the notion of a dominant narrative form completely and instead only focuses on what narrative forms the volume contains). If there is anything that is not completely self-explanatory, we can always create a notes field ($x) and clarify in a sentence or two.

Here are some phrases we commonly use to categorize narrative forms:
$a:
Third-person
First-person
Epistolary
$b:
Third-person
First-person
Letter(s)
Poem(s)

Of course, there are inherent problems with the 592 field. The most obvious problem is that since Richard and I are not reading the full text, there are bound to be narratorial intricacies that we cannot pick up on just from flipping through or skimming the book. For example, if a novel is written in third-person, but there is an instance where the narrator slips into first-person, we might not notice it. Therefore, our system cannot be viewed as completely accurate or all-encompassing, because we are not reading the full works. Another problem with our system is that is does not necessarily make room for more unique circumstances, such as instances of narrative monologue or free indirect discourse. These are more nuanced narrative forms that are difficult to capture within our current categorical system, and even more difficult to pick up on while flipping through novels.

The solution to these problems, I suppose, is to view the 592 field as a guide to locating certain narrative forms rather than all-inclusive or exclusive evidence of their existence. I imagine that such a guide could be extremely useful to scholars and students alike, especially coupled with unconventional mapping techniques. It would be interesting, for example, to put the information from the 592 field on a timeline and see if there are any trends in narration that could not have been tracked without our quantitative work coupled with digital tools (does third-person narration in epistolary novels increase/decrease over time? Does third-person narration within the epistles in epistolary novels increase/decrease and could this lead us to broader hypotheses about the rise of the novel? and so forth).