As it happens, I’m writing a paper that includes reference to our readings for this week, so the issues they raise are right in the front of my mind, and I’m especially curious to hear what you think.
First, let’s consider: Why is the Galtung article here, since it’s not about literature– is it? Not exactly.
And I think you might find his argument sort of belabored, proving a point that seems hard to argue against. Would anybody disagree with Galtung that there are some kinds of violence that are hard to see as such, because they’re not inflicted by one person against another. “When one husband beats his wife there is a clear case of personal violence,” he writes, “but when one million husbands keep their wives in ignorance, there is structural violence.” I think people might disagree about whether this is a good example of it, but they would generally agree that there is such a thing as structural violence.
What if we take this understanding of ways that happy endings are distributed unequally among us as a feature of the contemporary moment– a “historic-philosophical reality,” as Lukacs described it?
If we do that, then we can ask: What literary forms to contemporary writers invent to represent the ways structural violence registers in real life?
And what literary forms does Beatty invent for this in The Sellout? Could we think of prolepsis, for example, or the features of narrator, character, and setting that you identified last week?
I AM SUPERCURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK.
(You might want to refer back to Levine or any other theorist to help with this one. And cite page numbers when you can.)
*** ALSO remember, WEDNESDAY PEOPLE: In place of class this week, we have conferences that you scheduled. I’ll post those on the “evening” calendar.