But aren't those "breakings" in most cases dot-like incidents in a story which doesn't break this wall for the greater part? It's one thing to write something like that, but it's another to write a story completely
behind the fourth wall.
S. Lem reviewed an imaginary book which tries to do that. It is "Toi" by Raymond Seurat. Lem wasn't delighted about it. But you may want to read the review yourself:http://books.google.de/books?id=jMvpf5K1qD0C&pg=PA112&lpg=PA113&dq=Raymond+Seurat:+Toi
Which leads to another possibility. Could a review of the writer-reader love story (instead of the story itself) help us out? Because if one writes a story one can only write what can
be written. But if you write about a non-existent story you can at least write about what might
be written. (Or even about what can't be written at all
. See the review of the book "Rien du tout, ou la conséquence" by Solange Marriot on page 69.)