Dichotomous Distress

Is all philosophical content expressed through either literature or abstract theoretical treatises, or is this a false dichotomy?

Depending on how we characterize literature, I think it is safe to say that the question above would be a false dichotomy. However, a closer reading of the text would indicate that Nussbaum does not offer such a dichotomy; she acknowledges many different forms through which philosophy is communicated. Her focus is primarily comparing her own advocacy (narrative form) and the most basic counterargument to her point (abstract treatises). I seems as though I was the only one in danger of forming a false dichotomy.

Non-Ethical Efficacy

Does Nussbaum's value of narrative form apply to philosophical concepts outside of ethics?

My first pre-critical answer to this question was yes; I believed that certain non-ethical concepts might indeed be better suited to narrative depiction. However, after reading the comment that Corey wrote on one of Jacob's blog posts (Nussbaum's Novel Notion), I decided that I was approaching this question from the wrong perspective. I agree with Corey's analysis (essentially) that different writers with different concepts will be more or less effective using different forms. It seems to be a matter of skill and preference that determines the effectiveness of communicating an idea. Furthermore, any notion of an objective manner by which we can determine the efficacy of a particular writing form for a particular concept needs much more defense than Nussbaum has provided thus far.