Torres 1

Belen Torres

Dr. Sharity Nelson

English 1301-102

16 October 2023

A Review on a Peer-Reviewed Journal About Film Studies

On October 20, 2022, Mario Slugan authored an article for scholars in text-oriented film

studies who are focused on the theorization of fiction in films titled, “Fiction as a Challenge to

Text-Oriented Film Studies.” Slugan argues that the distinction between fiction/nonfiction in

films is often wrongly categorized, which “may lead to both misunderstanding of audience

experience and ethical problems alike” (427). Slugan then expands his argument by claiming

fiction has a direct correlation to the imagination, and it through this “relationship between

fiction and belief” that fiction can be more accurately theorized (427). Mario Slugan’s article is

mostly persuasive because it presents counterarguments against ideas from other experts in the

field of film studies and uses multiple examples of loosely defined fictional pieces of media in

support of its argument.

First, Slugan presents an idea from other scholars in the field of film theory then uses

logical reasoning to explain a counterargument against these ideas; effectively appealing to logos

in support of Slugan’s claim that fiction is often wrongly categorized. Because fiction defined in

film is a highly theorized topic among film studies, there are multiple definitions and ideas of the

role fiction takes in films. For example, Slugan provides context on one significant film theory

that argues the audience to a piece of media is “at least momentarily said to have been fooled

into believing the content of fictional representations” (443). Slugan counterargues this theory by
 Torres 2

stating, “[This idea has] been criticized extensively by cognitivists and psychoanalytic theorists

alike and [has] lost currency” (444). By referring to other theorists who specialize on cognization

and psychoanalysis in film studies to show the idea is outdated, Slugan appeals to the reader’s

sense of logical thinking through poking holes on claims that go against his own. Addressing the

holes in these claims helps in making Slugan’s argument that fiction cannot be so neatly

categorized more effective.

Second, Slugan uses multiple examples of films that cannot be strictly defined as fiction

throughout his article, effectively appealing to ethos to support his argument that fiction is often

misinterpreted in film. Throughout his article Slugan goes on to provide examples on “TV shows

like The Office (BBC 2011–13) and films like The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and

Eduardo Sánchez, 1999) [which] make extensive use of documentary aesthetics. Yet they

constitute fictions, nonetheless” (429). Similarly, Slugan then refers to animation films, which

are often associated with fiction. Slugan presents examples of nonfiction animation films like

“the almost completely animated Waltz with Bashir (Ari Folman, 2008) and Tower (Keith

Maitland, 2016)” (429). Slugan uses these examples to show that some films cannot be placed

into the fiction box without stepping out the lines. If this is the case, Slugan argues the

categorization of fiction in films must be reevaluated. Additionally, through Slugan’s extensive

knowledge of film he asserts himself as someone who is credible. His opinion is then given value

by the reader. Through this appeal of ethos, Slugan is able to effectively persuade the audience

on his controlling idea that fiction as a category has many gray areas.

Thirdly, Slugan is less persuasive in supporting his claim that fiction is not appropriately

categorized when using rhetorical strategies that appeal to emotion. Slugan applies his claim to

staged reenactments, which are also known to have many gray areas on fiction vs nonfiction.
 Torres 3

Slugan begins by setting the scene in which he is reenacting a “speech at [his] relative’s

wedding” to his friends (441). He writes, “I could also be completely misrepresenting how my

speech looked like in order to, say, present myself as wittier than I was, but this would not make

the re-enactment fictional – it would just make it a deliberate misrepresentation” (441). Using

first person pronouns in this made-up scenario allows for the reader to put themselves in

Slugan’s shoes; however, this emotional appeal is weakened by the suddenness in which it is

presented. Slugan switches back to a third person point of view again shortly after and in no

other point of his article does he use first-person pronouns again. The example Slugan makes is

not a bad one, but in the context of a peer-reviewed article it feels out of place from the rest of

the journal. Overall, Slugan’s argument is weakened because this appeal to pathos failed in

connecting to the reader’s sense of emotion.

To add to the previous topic, although Slugan use of first-person pronouns was

disorienting – he did not completely fail to appeal to pathos in his article. For instance, Slugan

compares films to children playing with dolls to illustrate his point on what counts as fiction. He

claims, “The main difference is that whereas in children’s games the mandate is most often

explicit in the sense that children usually announce that this object will stand for that fictional

entity, in cinema and the arts in general it is implicit meaning no such pre-emptive

announcement is made,” (432). This appeal to pathos of inducing the reader’s childhood

memories when compared to the use of first-person pronouns, illustrates the second example

given was more effective in appealing to the reader’s emotions. This use of pathos helps

persuade the reader that fiction cannot be as easily labeled as one is led to believe.

To conclude, despite the out of place use of first-person pronouns, Mario Slugan’s article

presents counterarguments against opposing claims from other scholars and uses multiple
 Torres 4

examples of loosely defined fiction movies and TV shows in support of its argument. Therefore,

it is mostly persuasive. Fiction in film theory, if to be taken as a serious topic of discussion must

then be evaluated in a credible and respectable manner. What Slugan hopes to invoke in the

reader is the importance of the role of fiction in film theorization (445). The audience should be

made aware of the relationship between imagination and fiction in film. Readers are encouraged

to think back to movies or TV shows they have seen and evaluate for themselves whether that

piece of media was strictly fiction.

 Torres 5

Work Cited

Slugan, Mario. “Fiction as a Challenge to Text-Oriented Film Studies.” New Review of Film and

Television Studies, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 427-450. Academic Search Complete,

DOI:10.1080/17400309.2022.2132072