我們可以區分三種「創造歷史／敘事／故事」的方式。歷史作為人類在地球上進化軌跡的集合；敘事作為對過去事件的客觀化和闡釋性書寫；故事作為對真實或虛構的過去、現在或未來事件的虛構化書寫。這三種事件的敘事化雖然截然不同，但並非各自獨立或不可分割，而是相互豐富。因此，我們應該用歷史／敘事／故事來連結敘事性的三個先驗、經驗和象徵線索。本文的理論論點是，社會科學中歷史寫作的危機與文學中敘述故事的危機是並行且相互關聯的現象。本文提出的問題是從一種歷史和敘事形式到另一種形式的轉變。最後，在自動書寫出現的脈絡下，對書寫與歷史性之間連結的質疑呈現出新的意義：這種新的書寫方式揭示了書寫與歷史／敘事／故事關係的哪些轉變？
We can distinguish three ways of "making histories." History as the set of evolutionary traces of Humanity on Earth; history as the objectifying and interpretative writing of past events; and histories as the fictionalized writing of real or fictional past, present, or future events. These three types of historicization of events, although distinct, are neither separate nor separable, but rather mutually enrich each other. Thus, we should speak of H/history(ies) to hold together the three transcendental, empirical, and symbolic threads of narrativity. The theoretical argument of this article is that the crisis of the writing of History in the social sciences and in the narrative of histories in literature are parallel and interconnected phenomena. The question it raises is that of the transformation from one historical and narrative form to another. Finally, this questioning of the links between writing and historicity takes on new meaning in the context of the emergence of automatic writing processes: what do these tell us about the transformations in the relationship between writing and H/history(ies)?