The goal of illuminating readers’ responses to literary texts has recently occupied increasingly more researchers (see Miall, 2003, for a comprehensive review). Psychonarratology, being the collaborative effort between a literary theorist and a cognitive scientist, understandably is located firmly within the cognitive turn in narratology (cf. Herman, 2001; Fludernik, 1996). Hence, these particular investigators seek to determine how textual features cause corresponding mental constructions in readers. In order to be able to claim causality, their research paradigm is necessarily an experimental one that utilizes the textual experiment in which certain features of texts are manipulated according to the research question at hand producing different versions of the same text that are then presented to readers to respond to. Grounding this methodology is the theoretical assumption that readers “often process narrative in much the same way that they would process conversation”(p. 33) but only in the sense that readers assume that narrators are cooperative and that incommensurate amounts of information generate implicatures, that is,“inferences about the narrator’s knowledge and beliefs that would render the narrator cooperative”(p. 73). In this way, their theoretical orientation borrows very selectively from Grice’s (1975) maxims of conversation. Indeed, elsewhere they state that their perspective on the reader’s representation of the narrator “capitalizes on the intuition that communicative processing is central to the processing of narrative without being encumbered by the conceptual difficulties that an assumption of real communication entails”(p. 72). On the one hand, such a simplifying stance can be viewed as necessary to the experimental methodology being employed but on the other, there are alternative perspectives that attempt a much richer analysis of how a literary text can be considered a communicative act between an author and reader,