Environmentality

Acknowledgements
The book before you had its origins in a doctoral thesis submitted to
the Department of Anglophone Studies (Faculty of Humanities, University of Duisburg-Essen) in 2011. Parts of the thesis have been
abridged and others rewritten, reducing the introductory account of
ecocritical theory in length and drawing out the principal arguments.
Thanks are due, first of all, to my pater dissertationis, Jens Martin
Gurr, who has encouraged, supported and assisted me in every possible way and whose intellectual rigour and literary understanding continue to impress me. Thanks go as well to my second advisor, Kylie
Crane, for her critical and thorough readings of initial drafts and for
suggesting numerous improvements to the text. I would also like to
thank Ursula Renner-Hanke, who chaired the disputatio, the staff of
the Department of Anglophone Studies and the students of the PhD
colloquium for the interesting and stimulating discussions. Special
thanks go to Claudia Perner for her careful readings of the thesis,
helpful suggestions and, most importantly, supportive encouragement
when I felt the project would not come to an end.
Thanks go to Christa Stevens of Rodopi and the anonymous reviewers of the draft for accepting my book for tKHVHULHV1Dture, CulWXUHDQG/LWHUDWXUHDQGIRUthe careful editing and proofreading of the
manuscript. In particular, I am very grateful for the assistance of Axel
Goodbody, who, from an early stage onwards, encouraged me in my
work and provided helpful criticism.
I also thank my colleagues at the English Department II at the University of Cologne for supporting me and simply being amazing colleagues and friends.
There are too many to thank them all individually, but I would also
like to express my gratitude to the members of ASLE-UKI and
EASLCE for the wonderful discussions and enlightening experiences
at conferences and other meetings. In particular, I would like to thank
Hannes Bergthaller, John Parham and Greg Garrard. For stimulating
debates and for providing me with texts out of print or hard to get, I
am very grateful to Sylvia Mayer, Norbert Platz and Hubert Zapf.
EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction
Last but clearly never least, I thank Julia for being there for me
when there seemed to be nothing but work and no hope of it ever coming to a close.
This book is dedicated to Annette and Axel, for being the wonderful
parents they are.
Ecocriticism [...] claims as its hermeneutical environment nothing

short of the literal horizon itself, the finite environment that a
reader or writer occupies thanks not just to culturally coded determinants but also to natural determinants that antedate these, and
will outlast them.
Herbert F. Tucker (1999: 505)
Les thories passent. Le grenouille reste.
Note on the door of a UCLA laboratory (quoted in Love 2003: 17)
1. Introduction
It is a truth almost universally acknowledged that the physical world is
in crisis. Discussions of eQYLURQPHQWDO GHJUDGDWLRQ WKH VL[WK PDVV
H[WLQFWLRQRIDQLPDOV (see Leakey & Lewin 1995, Heise 2010a) and
anthropogenic climate change express an awareness that particular
ways of living RIWHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK :HVWHUQ PRGHUQLW\ are
threatening the continued balance of WKH ZRUOGV HFRORJLFal reality.
These ways of living seem incompatible with the limited resources of
the ecosystem. So, over the last few decades, societies have tried to
address this imbalance through technological, legal, and scientific
means. But success remains marginal, as, for instance, the warnings of
WKHSHDNRIHYHU\WKLQJVXJJHVW+HLQEHUJ. With this conflict
in mind, the humanities have begun to understand technological optimism and a purely rationalistic stance on ecology to be part of the
problem and to hold that the ecological crisis is also a FULVLV RI WKH
LPDJLQDWLRQ In The Environmental Imagination, Lawrence Buell
writes:
10

If, as environmental philosophers contend, western metaphysics and ethics need
UHYLVLRQ EHIRUH ZH FDQ DGGUHVV WRGD\V HQYLURQPHQWDO SUREOHPV WKHQ HQYLURnmental crisis involves a crisis of the imagination the amelioration of which deSHQGV RQ ILQGLQJ EHWWHU ZD\V RI LPDJLQLQJ QDWXUH DQG KXPDQLW\V UHODWLRQ WR LW
(Buell 1995: 2)
By tackling the epistemological and ethical foundations of environmental crises, the humanities and the arts are participating in the necessary effort to HQJDJH ZLWK FXUUHQW SUREOHPV LQ HFRORJ\1 One of
the most vital scholarly forms of inquiry has become known as ecocriticism. In the beginning, ecocriticism sought to trace the natural in
cultural artefactsFODLPLQJWKDWQDWXUHKDGDOPRVW been forgotten in
modernist and postmodernist times despite its pivotal role in human
life. Ecocriticism today is a diverse field but all approaches share two
main objectives: that ecocriticism constitute an active contribution to
meeting a contemporary social challenge environmental crisis and
that it provide a way of re-assessing scholarly critical practice with
regard to the role nature has been assigned in academic studies.
(FRFULWLFLVP PD\ WKXV WDNH IRUP DV D SURMHFW RI *UHHQ &XOWXUDO
6WXGLHV that takes into consideration WKH GLVFUHSDQF\ EHWZHHQ FXrUHQWHYHQWVDQGWKHSUHRFFXSDWLRQVRIWKHOLWHUDU\SURIHVVLRQ, and as a
VLJQ WKDW OLWHUDU\ VWXGLHV has EHFRPH aware of the environmental
FULVLV (Glotfelty 1996: xvi). I want to distinguish such a project of
Green Cultural Studies from an ecocriticism understood as HQYLURnmental literary FULWLFLVP (Kerridge 1998: 4; emphasis added). The
ODWWHULVDUHDFWLRQWRWKHIDFWWKDW>W@KHUHDOPDWHULDOFULVLV>@LVDOVR
a cultural crisis, a crisis of representation. The inability of political
FXOWXUHVWRDGGUHVVHQYLURQPHQWDOLVPLVLQSDUWDIDLOXUHRIQDUUDWLYH
(4). As environmental(ist) FRQFHUQVZLOOQRWEHNHSWRXWRIQDUUDWLYH
(4), environmental literary criticism must analyse the ways of
narrating these concerns, but it must also discuss the role of fictional
literature in the context of environmental crises in general. While an
DSSURDFKRI*UHHQ&XOWXUDO6WXGLHV predominantly addresses environmental issues and their representation in narrative media, a criticism
that focuses on narrative form because it has identified a failure of
narrative would have to examine aesthetics as a means of engaging
with the world and the ethical impetus behind it.
This term comes from John Passmore and has been discussed by Greg Garrard. See
Chapter 2.2 of this study.
Introduction
11
Such a connection of aesthetics with ethics, however, entails a

number of problems. Our imaginative, narrative engagement with the
physical world is bound up with our ethical attitude towards it and the
living community of which we are a part. Moreover, it is tied to scientific convictions and ideological beliefs that inform our idea of nature.
These convictions and beliefs influence the patterns of fictional narratives, yet, at the same time, narratives often seek to transcend these
influences by trying to establish new perspectives. How, then, can
these two issues be kept apart? Can fictional literature transcend its
own imaginative boundaries in order to affect and change consciousness? I believe that it can, but I also believe that this requires a new
ZD\RIUHDGLQJJUHHQOLWHUDWXUHDQG of theorising ecocriticism. This
challenge is what this study tries to address.
To this day, much ecocritical work has referred to the sciences
ecology in particular and has combined its own moral impetus with
scientific notions of the looming environmental crisis. In this study, I
will argue that approaches of this kind have led to a number of aporias
rather than offering means of understanding how literature can help to
effect a change in consciousness. An environmental consciousness
cannot be grounded on environmentalist or ecological discourses
alone. I will therefore argue that we need to develop a reading praxis
that does not solely rely on scientific, ecological or even moral insights but that allows for a fictional engagement with the aporias of
these discourses and the conflicts that have led to the very crisis at
hand. I think that this notion can facilitate the formulation and negotiation of new perspectives on the environment and the place and role
of human beings in the life of the planet and throw light on literatXUHV
ethical contribution to addressing environmental crises.
Accordingly, this study will address the role and potential of literature in the process of contesting, negotiating and re-evaluating the
natural environment and human ethical duties towards it. I will argue
that literary texts can inspire such processes by virtue of what has
EHHQ FDOOHG WKH OLWHUDULQHVV VLQJXODULW\ DQG DOWHULW\ RI WKH WH[W
7KXV,ZLOOHPSOR\WKHQRWLRQRIWKHOLWHUDU\HYHQWDVGHVFULEHGE\
Derek Attridge, who grounds it in both formalist theory and Derridean
thRXJKW$WWULGJHSURSRVHVDIRUPRIUHDGLQJWKDWRFFXUVDVDQHYHQW
a living-through or performing of the text that responds simultaneously to what is said, the way in which it is said, and the inventiveQHVV DQG VLQJXODULW\ LI WKHUH LV DQ\ RI WKH VD\LQJ $WWULGJH D
60). Discussing the specific literary quality of verbal art, Attridge
12
FODLPVWKDWWKHHYHQWRIOLWHUDWXUHHQWDLOVQHZSRVVLELOLWLHVRIPHDQLQJ
and feeling (Attridge 2004b: 59). This idea will be the starting point
for my readings in the context of EnvironMentality. EnvironMentality,
I will argue, involves radical reassessments of what we think we know
about the world. Undoubtedly, it will involve a certain level of uncertainty and ZKDW .HDWV KDV GHVFULEHG DV negative capabilit\ WKDW LV
WKH VWDWH ZKHQ PDQ LV FDSDEOH RI EHLQJ LQ XQFHUWDLQWLHV 0\VWHULHV
doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason, which he
locates mainly in poetry (Keats 2002: 41-2). That negative capability
will also be fostered by EnvironMentality will be shown by the readings in the following chapters. I will argue that rather than providing
us with insights or facts about the world, a literary engagement with
the critical condition of the world requires that we leave behind old
ways of talking about nature and opt for the unknown and uncertain
instead.
Literature does not explain or second scientific and philosophical
notions; it poses a fundamental challenge to any form of knowledge.
But how does it do so? How can ethics and narrative be connected?
How does narrative form reflect or challenge ideas of reality? And
how could this benefit ecocriticism? Before I explore possible answers
to these questions, some other questions have to be addressed. For
instance, one such question is: Why choose postcolonial literature?
And: is this study a work of postcolonial ecocriticism?
In this book, I will read wKDW , VRPHZKDW VZHHSLQJO\ FDOO postcolonial texts, but I will not claim to be engaging in postcolonial
ecocriticism. On the contrary, I think that the idea of a specific theory
of postcolonial ecocriticism is problematic. Most notably, for me,
postcolonial ecocriticism does not inevitably lead to a form of ecomaterialism, as, for instance, Pablo Mukherjee, Graham Huggan and
Helen Tiffin argue. Instead, I hold that with or without the epithet
postcoloQLDO ecocriticism has a lot to do with the emplotment of
tensions, between centre and periphery, for instance, but also between
nature and culture and even between these kinds of dichotomies and
the attempt to do away with them. Instead of arguing for a culturalist,
naturalist, relativist or essentialist perspective, ecocriticism offers
ways to deal with the problematic implications of such binary epistemologies, and the postcolonial perspective certainly adds to the caution exercised with regard to these binaries.
Binary thinking still permeates ecocritical discussions, however.
Glen A. Love has described the dismissal RIQDWXUHDVWKHJUeat blind
Introduction
13
spot of postmodernism (Love 2003: 26), arguing that any radicalconstructivist idea of literary mediation, while it raises awareness of
national, ethical, racial and gender-related issues, falls short of acNQRZOHGJLQJ WKH Rverarching context of an autonomously existing
system that we call nature (Love 2003: 26). The autonomy of nature,
it seems, constitutes a conditio sine qua non that guarantees nature to
be extra-discursive yet by ignoring linguistic representation and
ideological and social influences on the very concept of nature, we
risk another unbalanced approach to the extratextual. Nature is more
than a system outside of cultural systems; it permeates cultures and is
in turn constituted by certain epistemological traditions. In Raymond
Williams ZRUGV QDWXUH LV LQGHHG WKH PRst complex word in our
language (Williams 1976: 184).
I agree with Love that it is a PLVWDNH WR DVVXPH WKDW VRFLHW\ LV
complex while nature is simple (Love 2003: 23). However, the reversal of a wrong assumption does not necessarily create a correct one,
and postcolonial literatures offer a helpful perspective on the complexities of environments and cultures 1HLWKHU WKH VRFLDO QRU WKH
QDWXUDOFDQEHNHSWRXWRIWKHHFRFULWLFDOHTXDWLRQ Accordingly, these
seemingly conflicting poles, the existence of the natural world and its
inevitable cultural textuality, require negotiation. By virtue of the numerous conflicts of language and environment they emplot, many
texts from formerly colonised countries in fact provide for such a negotiation. It is here that we find a constant conflict between naturalising tendencies of language and textualising strategies of environmental representation. Therefore, reading postcolonial literatures ecocritically certainly sheds light on the emplotment of tensions and thus
RIIHUV QHZ SRVVLELOLWLHV RI PHDQLQJ DQG IHHOing (Attridge 2004b:
59).
While ecocriticism has led scholars to reclaim the idea of an extratextual reality as part (and backbone) of their studies, postcolonial
theory offers a number of concepts that share an awareness of the
discursivity of seemingly natural perceptions and representations.
Moreover, (post)colonial history was and is a history of profound
changes DQG PRPHQWV RI GHJUDGDWLRQ DQG VXEMXJDWLRQ RI IRUHLJQ
flora and fauna, and it tells of unique processes of discursively influencing and changing these very environments. Above all, it is in postcolonial texts that we the distiQFWLRQEHWZHHQXVDQGWKHPZLOO
of course have to be addressed in the course of this study experience
one of the most crucial and most problematic aporias of environmen-
14
talism: the stance of Western environmental ethics, which believes its

claims to be universal (since the natural world knows no national borders and cultural differences), is met by other ways of dealing with
nature. These other ways may be opposed to Western environmentalist
LGHRORJ\WKHQHHGVRIQDWXUHDVWKH\KDYHEHHQGHILQHGIURP RXWVLGH
may not be the same as, and may be incompatible with, the needs that
postcolonial societies or communities express. These conflicts are
often negotiated in literary works, and fictional texts thus address the
problems and aporias of environmental ethics in a globalised world.
5HDGLQJ WKHVH WH[WV WKXV KHOSV XV DV Western DQG SUREDEO\ academic, readers) to realise how problematic any claims of a universalistic ethics are. The postcolonial focus is therefore able to throw into
sharp relief certain blind spots of an ecocritical theory that seeks to
SURYLGHIRUDQRULHQWDWLRQWRZDUGVWKDWZKLFKLVLHDSK\VLFDOZRUOG
in its own right where the human perspective is only one among
many. In fact, HYHQWKLVKXPDQYRLFHLVKLJKO\KHWHURJORW
By complementing ecocriticism with elements from postcolonial
studies and a general focus on the aesthetic, discursive nature of texts,
I develop a theoretical basis upon which readings that negotiate environmental ethics, ecological conflicts and the role of culture and textuality become possible. In particular, the concept of alterity, frequently employed in postcolonial studies, can be effectively applied to
(postcolonial) ecocriticism. Bringing together ecocriticism and the
discourse of alterity will thus provide for a way of dealing with the
WH[WXDOLW\ RI HQYLURQPHQWDO WH[WV. The term HQYLURQPHQWDO WH[W LV
most commonly associated with Lawrence Buell, and my recurring
HQJDJHPHQW ZLWK %XHOOV ZULWLQJ PD\ raise another question: as a
(postcolonial) ecocritic, RQHPLJKWIHHOWHPSWHGWRDVN:K\%XHOO"
Ecocriticism is an approach that employs numerous perspectives, and
%XHOOV$PHULFDQQRWLRQRIHFRFULWLFLVPLVRQO\RQHRIWKese.
The first point in answer to this question is that it was Buell who
extended the definition of ecocriticism from the tenet that ecocritics
are concerned with tKH VWXG\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ OLWHUDWXUH
DQGWKHSK\VLFDOHQYLURQPHQW (Glotfelty 1996: xviii) to the program
RIVWXGLHVRIWKHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQOLWHUDWXUHDQGWKHHQYLURQPHQW
conducted in a spirit of commitment to environmental praxis (Buell
1995: 430n20; emphasis orig.). Buell thus explicitly included ethics
LQWR HFRORJLFDO FULWLFLVP 7KLV FRQQHFWLRQ KDV UHVXOWHG LQ D WHQVLRQ
between the ethical agenda (see Cohen 2004) and the growing diversity and often incommensurable variety of theoretical approaches that
Introduction
15
has constantly increased over the last few years a tension that has
EHHQ LQVXIILFLHQWO\ DGGUHVVHG :KLOH %XHOOV HWKLFDO VWDQFH KDV ILUVW
and foremost been anti-postmodern in its attempts to reclaim a paradigmatic realism questioned by postmodern scholarship, other scholars have embraced postmodernism, even, for example, tracing ecoFULWLFLVPV UKL]RPDWLF WUDMHFtory (see Oppermann 2010). Unless
FRQFHLYHGZLWKDSRVWPRGHUQDQ\WKLQJJRHVVXFKFRQWUDGLFWLRQVare
bound to be unsatisfying. Of course, I do not reject studies with a
focus different from my own on the contrary, I second Dominic
+HDG ZKR PDLQWDLQV WKDW GLIIHUHQW NLQGV RI HFRFULWLFLVP DUH QHFHsVDU\ DQG GHVLUDEOH (Head 1998: 38) but these contradictions are a
strong argument for attempts to theorise ecocritical literary analyses
more precisely. Secondly, it is %XHOOVPXFK-contested idea of realism
and mimesis, and the troubles these notions implicate, that may provide a way of dealing with the contradictions outlined above.
If studies such as this one consider texts from a number of
places, by a number of authors, and from a number of cultural contexts (and if all these differences ultimately happen to be subsumed
XQGHU WKH SUREOHPDWLF KHDGOLQH RI SRVWFRORQLDOLVP), another issue
comes to the fore: the problem of the choice of texts. Clearly, choices
have to be made, and it has not been my intention to provide a general
PDS RI SRVWFRORQLDO OLWHUDWXUH. This would wrongly imply a coherence of texts, and it would also imply that WKHSRVWFRORQLDOZRUOGis a
coherent entity that can easily be distinguished from a hegemonic
culture. Instead, and by picking texts from diverse cultural contexts
and reading them against the foil of my own cultural background and
with a focus on the respective aesthetic potentials, I exemplify a specific process of ecocritical, interpretive engagement a process of
continuous exposure to alterity by means of which reading fiction
allows us WR H[SHULHQFH WKH RWKHUQHVV RI ERWK QDWXUH DQG postcoloQLDOWH[W,WKDVEHHQDGHOLEHUDWHGHFLVLRQWRIRFXVRQYLUWXDOO\FaQRQLFDOWH[WVRISRVWFRORQLDOHFRFULWLFLVPDQGHQJDJHZLWKWKHPLQD
predominantly text-centred way in order to see whether critical opinion can either be supported or questioned on the grounds of my own
approach.
This is why I have tried to focus on the effects certain formal elements have on the reading process. I regard this interplay of the textual gestalt and the ecocritical potential of literature as the crucial aspect for what I call EnvironMentality. Taking its stance from
Gadamerian hermeneutics, EnvironMentality is firstly grounded on a
16
pre-judgment that governs the reading process of a particular interpretive community. A readerly IRre-FRQFHSWLRQ RI FRPSOHWHQHVV
again a term from Gadamer (1994: 294) then becomes empowered
by textual traces, which affect and guide the reading process further.
For me, defining and describing these traces is the primary task of this
study. On this basis, I will then start to outline the modes of negotiation by means of which a textual engagement with nature becomes
possible. EnvironMentality denotes the effect of such textual negotiDWLRQVE\LQWHUSUHWLQJDWH[WDFHUWDLQHQYLURQPHQWDODZDUHQHVVDQG
processes of understanding are both presupposed and fostered. Using
the notion of alterity, this kind of understanding will be described as a
reading experience that allows for an idea of the world and its reality
that emphasises its elusiveness and its reliance on mediation.
It is necessary to understand that the narrative structures and formal elements in the focus of my readings do not define an environmental text as such. Rather, it is the interplay between such elements
DQGWKHUHDGHUVLQWHUSUHWDWLRQDQGWKHGLDORJLFDOSURFHVVEHWZHHQWKH
artistic pole of the text and the aesthetic pole of interpretive praxis,
that I deem crucial for ecocritical readings. This reference to WolfgaQJ,VHUVFRQFHSWRIDUWLVWLFDQGDHVWKHWLFSROHVLVQRWFRLQFLGHQWDO
While I resort to formalist and structuralist theories and ultimately use
narratological concepts to describe the texts as literary works of art, I
see reception aesthetics as a necessary adjunct to any formalist reading
and, even more so, of an ecocritical hermeneutics. It is the interaction
of text and readership that results in the power of the literary in coping
with an environmental and imaginative crisis. Coping with these crises, however, will not be an individual act of strength but a challenge
that affects a whole interpretive community. Inasmuch as the concept
of the interpretive community informs my approach with regard to
postcolonial notions of cultural diversity, I owe terminology and conceptual models to Stanley Fish. I invoke his concept of the interpretive
community, but I do not altogether share his assumption that this
community fully determines our understanding of literary texts. At
least I do not think this is where EnvironMentality ends. While we
may be bound to the interpretive community we are in, the act of interpretation is, in the most idealistic sense hermeneutic critics like
Gadamer have to offer, an act of merging the horizons of person and
text, but also of nature and culture, human and animal, and environmental and cultural crises.
Introduction
17
EnvironMentality therefore manifests itself in a process that is determined by the human capacity to think beyond a given hermeneutic
situation. This process encompasses the dialectics of understanding
the other (which may be nature, nonhuman animals or VLPSO\ RXU
fellow human beings) by means of literary exegesis, and, finally, it
helps us as readers of fiction to learn from the books we read that
which can only be learned by PHDQVRIUHDGLQJWRWKLQNOLNHDPRXnWDLQ (Leopold) DQG WR NQRZ ZKDW LW LV OLNH WR EH D EDW (Nagel)
EnvironMentality.
Given this idealistic trust in the literary text, I will begin this study
with a discussion of what I perceive to be the shortcomings of the
rationalist discourse on environmentalism and ethics. In Chapter 2, I
provide a short overview of ecocriticism both chronologically and
from a theoretical angle, and I outline the influences that have shaped
ecocritical theory: philosophy, ecological science and literary theory.
,QDGGUHVVLQJWKHGLVFXVVLRQRIDQHWKLFDOUHDGLQJSUD[LVDQGRIOLtHUDU\UHDGLQJVDVDQDFWLYLW\ZLWKDQDJHQGD, I will engage with the
contradictions and aporias of ecocritical theory. In the second subchapter, I discuss the specific problem of textuality and a supposedly
QDWXUDOUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ,WZLOOEHVKRZQWKDWHFRFULWLFLVPZLOOKDYHWR
take literary modes of representation and thus, to a certain degree,
ideology into account if its practitioners want to understand how
texts that deal with nature actually work and how these texts affect the
discourse within which they are located. Finally, I will present two
existing text-oriented approaches literary ecology and the ecopoetical concept of the HQYLURQPHQWDOWH[W and discuss their relevance for my idea of EnvironMentality as a result of the interplay of
WH[WXDOdeep structure and ecocritical interpretive processes.
In Chapter 3, I will engage with postcolonial theory and explain
my choice of texts E\GHVFULELQJKRZWKHRULHVRIDSRVWFRORQLDOHFoFULWLFLVPKDYHHYROYHGRXWRIWKHDZDUHQHVVRIWKHDSRULDV,GHVFULEHG
above. I will also explain in more detail how novels in the focus of
postcolonial studies qua their cultural origin and the context of their
authors, and because of the setting and histoire that refer to formerly
colonised countries can be read as sites of negotiations: negotiations
between different forms of dwelling and, most significantly, negotiations of conflictive ecological ethics. While these conflicts may be
incapable of resolution, the texts that address them do have the power
of harmonising their antagonisms as they strive to emplot them in a
coherent narrative whole. Drawing on Jrgen Link and Hubert Zapf, I
18
will argue that literary texts successfully reintegrate distinct discourses

and thus operate as an ethical discursive power in their own right by
engendering experiences of alterity.
I will elaborate on this idea with a model close reading of Amitav
*KRVKVThe Hungry Tide in Chapter 4. This reading will show how
literature can negotiate central dichotomies and propose its own
imaginative solutions. In that it brings together different human perspectives on the environment and engages with the narrativisation of
this very environment at the same time, The Hungry Tide harmonises
some of the tensions between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism
without, however, bringing it to closure. In a next step, I will discuss
the benefit of interpretive non-closure and juxtapose it with the idea of
harmonisation and understanding. Thus, I will point to the necessity of
UHIOHFWLQJRQRQHVRZQKHUPHQHXWLFDOVLWXDWLRQDQGpropose a way of
reading the world whereby the hermeneutics of EnvironMentality is
initiated, firstly, thrRXJKDQHQJDJHPHQWZLWKWKHWH[WVGHHSVWUXFWXUH
secondly, by a negotiation of textual gaps and tensions and, ultimately, by incorporating these processes into the reading experience
as such.
I summarise and reflect on the processes necessary for a development of EnvironMentality in the fifth chapter, which also provides a
map for further readings. The following chapters contain these readings: Chapter 6 ventures a critique of green progress and becoming (in
=DNHV0GDVThe Heart of Redness and The Whale Caller), Chapter 7
offers a discussion of the question of the animal (in <DQQ 0DUWHOV
Life of Pi and Beatrice and Virgil) or the staging of postnatural dystoSLDV DQG SRVWKXPDQLVP ILUVW E\ UHDGLQJ 0DUJDUHW $WZRRGV Oryx
and Crake and The Year of the Flood in Chapter 8 and then with readLQJVRI-0&RHW]HHVThe Lives of Animals and Elizabeth Costello in
Chapter 9).
As far as the choice of texts is concerned, I have to say that I have
chosen some of them principally because they have affected me and
thus helped me to understand the processes involved in EnvironMentality. This does not mean that an inclusion of personal interest and
experience should be understood as a way of giving in to subjectivism,
but the comprehension of and reflection upon individual influences
VHHPVDQLPSRUWDQWHOHPHQWLQDFULWLFDOSURMHFWWKDWDLPVDWVSHDNLQJ
IRUWKHHQYLURQPHQW$IWHUDOOsuch speaking will inevitably be in my
own voice. So although I have obviously tried to cover a fairly representative number of texts from a decade of (postcolonial) writing, I
Introduction
19
have to some extent made personal choices. Hence, some readers may
miss particular texts and others may think of the texts I included as
being old hat because they know a fairly substantial amount of scholarship dedicated to them already. To let oneself be guided, to a certain
extent, by individual choices, however, is more important than pretensions to objectivism because EnvironMentality necessarily starts from
an individual hermeneutical situation RQHVSHUVRQDOHQYLURQPHQWDV
it were. If, as Lawrence Buell maintains, ecocriticism must be understood as praxis, and if, as I am trying to show, this praxis for literary
scholars can only mean reading praxis, then these are the constituting
factors for its success: a certain breadth of textual material on the one
hand and individual appreciation on the other. I will therefore conclude this study by summarising and discussing the implications of
such a reading pra[LVDQGWKHDWWHPSWWRUHDGWKHZRUOG
Ultimately, EnvironMentality will, through the event of fiction that
allows us to experience the bonds between world and words, blur the
GLYLGLQJ OLQH EHWZHHQ QDWXUH RXW WKHUH DQG DQ DOOHJHGO\, radically,
distincWKXPDQFXOWXUH-RQDWKDQ%DWHPDLQWDLQVWKDWWKHUHODWLRQVKLS
between nature and culture is the key intellectual problem of the
twenty-first century (Bate 2008: xvii), and this study takes on the
problem by proposing a theory of an ecocritical reading praxis that
addresses textual form, readerly responses and the environ-mental
challenge in equal measure.
2. The State of Environmental Literary Criticism

In recent years, the field of ecocriticism has burgeoned and gone
through various stages of theoretical refinement and institutional recognition. Although it is still most dominant in the English and other
language departments, its development is multiform, and it is possible
to tell the history of ecocriticism in many ways.1 It is not the aim of
this study to give an extensive account of these various developments.
It rather sets out to join the recent theoretical developments in ecocriticism by adding the perspective of literary and aesthetic theory.
While in 2006 Louise Westling could rightfully describe ecocriticism
DVXQGHUWKHRUL]HG:HVWOLQJ,DJUHHZLWK*RRGERG\DQG
Rigby, who in their recent collection Ecocritical Theory welcome the
IDFW WKDW WKH DOOHJHG HFRFULWLFDO DQWLSDWK\ WR WKHRU\ LV RQ WKH ZDQH
(2011: 1). The question remains, however, which one of the various
theoretical approaches can best be brought to fruition without ignoring
the basic tenets of ecocritical objectives.
In order to explain the choice of theoretical approaches and my interest in literary form as well as the choice of literary texts (that is,
texts that FRXOGEHVXEVXPHGXQGHUWKHKHDGLQJRISostcolonial literaWXUH D FULWLFDO GLVFXVVLRQ RI VRPH RI WKH GRPLQDQW GHYHORSPHQWV
within ecocritical debates seems pertinent. Due to the increase in ecocritical theory, ecocriticism today incorporates materialist and poststructuralist posits alike, and LWVIRUPHUKRVWLOLW\WRZDUGVWKHRU\KDV
been replaced by a desire to hold a wide range of theoretical perspectives. As it were, ecocriticism now contains the whole spectrum of
academic theory.
See, for instance, Buell 2008; Clark 2011; Garrard 2004, and, although focused on
German literature, for a concise yet thorough introduction to ecocriticism, Goodbody 2007. Anthologies of source texts include Adamson, Evans & Stein 2002;
&RXSH*ORWIHOW\ )URPP-RXUQDOVLQFOXGH$6/(VIODJVKLSMRXUQDO
ISLE (Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment), ASLE-8.,V
Green Letters, and the European Journal of Literature, Culture and Environment: Ecozon@.
22
Naturally, this new diversity leads to quite different scholarly aims,

Ursula Heise (2006) observes. While Greg Garrard sees a central chalOHQJHLQDUHGHILQLWLRQRIWKHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQVFLence and green
cultural studies (Heise 2006: 294),2 Lawrence Buell maintains that an
HFRFULWLFDO YLHZ KDV VXFFHHGHG LQ opening up new textual archives
>@ FRPSDUDEOH WR WKDW RI IHPLQLVW RU EODFN VWXGies (295). Both
stances are valuable, but they are problematic as well(FRFULWLFLVPV
affiliation with scientific theory, its interest in political and civil activLVPDQGVRPHHFRFULWLFVGHPDQGVIRUDUHGHILQLWLRQRIWKHFDQRQWHQG
to instrumentalise literature in ways that run the risk of us losing sight
of the role, and what could tentatively be called the function, of fiction
in the context of both aesthetic and ethical discourses. This is the
weakness of ecocriticism as a possible theoretical paradigm that I
want to address in this study.
Heise seems to be equally aware of this weakness when she claims
that
[e]cocriticism, arguably, has not reached this stage [of an overarching theoretical
paradigm]; it has not yet demonstrated how its particular concerns over a nonhuman world under threat might reshape the study of texts and artifacts that do not
explicitly engage with nature. (Heise 2006: 296)
Coming to a similar conclusion, Philip Armstrong, in his discussion of

animal motifs in modern fiction, FRPSODLQVRIDODFNRIPHWKRGRORJiFDO YRFDEXODU\ (2008: 103) that a literary analysis of animality in
fiction would require. Indeed, I believe that ecocriticism will be unable to account for this lack as long as it only sparsely and often insufficiently concentrates on the genuinely fictional, aesthetic elements of
literature and the potential that arises from these elements. In what
follows, I outline my suggestions for this dilemma.
I will begin by tracing the development of the ecocritical debate
back to the point that I call somewhat hyperbolically DQHQOLJKtened dead-HQG 'HVSLWH WKH VXJJHVWLRQ RI D GHDG-HQG, I hope to
show that the situation of ecocriticism as I see it is not as bleak as it
might appear, and that by no means does ecocriticism have WREHDQ
DFDGHPLF GLVFRXUVH VR DUFDQH LW KDV QR UHDGHUV DW DOO (Cohen 2004:
29). The contrary is the case: the very form of fiction allows us to
2
,Q(FRFULWLFLVPDVD&RQWULEXWLRQWR&RQVLOLHQW.QRZOHGJH*DUUDUGSXVKHVWKH
point further and maintains HFRFULWLFLVPV SULPDU\ DOOHJLDQFH >is] not to phiORVRSK\HWKLFVRUOLWHUDU\WKHRU\EXWWRELRORJLFDOVFLHQFH*DUUDUGD
The State of Environmental Literary Criticism
23
discuss and negotiate the aporias of environmental and ecocritical

thinking in terms of the harmonising potential of imaginative literature
if its status as an aesthetic discourse is taken into account. With this
claim of the aesthetic potential of fictional discourse, I put literary
studies in a position of utmost importance, while reducing most of the
ecocritical endeavour of saving an endangered world to the task of
literary exegesis and analysis. In lieu of merely DSSUHFLDWLYHSUDLVHVFKRROUHDGLQJVWKDWFHOHEUDWHSDUWLFXODU IRUPV RI UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RU
SDUWLFXODUVROXWLRQVSURSRVHGE\VHHPLQJO\HFRFHQWULFWH[WV,DLPWR
show that a number of discursive and ethical challenges can be dealt
with effectively from the angle of literary-theoretical notions that consider literature as an aesthetic experience.
Accordingly, it is necessary to re-assess and therefore criticise
/DZUHQFH%XHOOVGHILQLWLRQRIHFRFULWLFLVPRUDVKHSUHIHUVWRFDOOLW
environmental criWLFLVP DV HQYLURQPHQWDO SUD[LV (Buell 1995: 430
n20) and his ideas about realism and mimesis. %XHOOVDWWHPSWVDWDQ
DSSOLHG OLWHUDU\ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ DQG WKH FORVHQHVV WR HQYLURQPHQWDO
activism he desires may be respectable but, on a theoretical level, they
pose sevHUDO SUREOHPV 7KH WHUP SUD[LV, despite its challenging
logical implications for the study of literature, is a term with philosophical connotations: as RQH RI %XHOOV PRVW IHUYHQW FULWLFV Dana
Phillips, PDLQWDLQVLWLVDWHUPIURPWKe Marxist theoretical tradition
(Phillips 1999: 278 n69). This is remarkable inasmuch as the Marxist
epistemological concerns with ideology and cultural superstructures
VHHP LQFRPSDWLEOH ZLWK %XHOOV FODLP RI UHDOLVt referentialism as a
principal aim of environmental texts. Phillips therefore concludes that
%XHOOV SRLQWLQJ WR 0DU[LVW WKHRU\ LV GRXEWIXO VLQFH KLV UHDOLVP LV
essentially a denial of the influence of ideology on our perception of
WKH ZRUOG 7KLV FRQWUDGLFWLRQ QRWZLWKVWDQGLQJ %XHOOV Qotion
of realist literature does indeed seem indebted to ideas comparable to
those within socialist realism.
Yet, despite the question of Marxist influences, the idea of an environmental praxis as defined in The Environmental Imagination remains problematic as the very term praxis implies that it is ERWKWKH
starting point and terminus of theory (Curry 2006: 113). Buell, however, seems to understand his claim for environmental praxis and realism as a means of disposing of theory. He perceives theory as an
abstract, and hence distortive, LQIOXHQFHRQWKHHQYLURQPHQWDOLPDJLQDWLRQEHFDXVHLWKDVOHGKXPDQVWRSHUFHLYHQDWXUHDVQRWKLQJPRUH
than projective fantasy or social allegory (Buell 1995: 36). This
24
generalising claim about the wURQJVRIWKHRU\LVDWRGGVZLWK%XHOOV

use of theoretical terms when it suits his argument, however. Phillips
VXJJHVWV WKDW %XHOO WHQGV WR XVH WKHRUHWLFDO WHUPV >@ UKHWRULFDOO\
rather than argumentatively, and therefore he uses them untheoretically. He borrows the jargon of theory while discounting its concepts
(Phillips 2003: 160).
Even if we agree that to read untheoretically breaches scholarly
codes of practice, it is still a matter of passionate debate as to which
theory one should resort for various reasons. It is my aim to outline
and demonstrate my objections against the hitherto proposed theoretical borrowings especially if they have been borrowed at the expense of literary theory. In what follows, reflecting on the role of literary theory will lead to a solution to the ostensible, theoretical stalemate that the dispute Buell versus Phillips exemplifies. That is to say,
, ZLOO VKRZ WKDW WR GHEDWH HFRFULWLFLVPV WKHRUHWLFDO IRXQGDWLRQV E\
means of (ecological or environmental) philosophy or the natural sciences is possible, but not necessary. In the end, ecocriticism does not
have to concern itself with science and moral theory as arbiters of
literary studies. I will elaborate on this claim by reviewing these influences in more detail below and show the result to be a number of
grave contradictions. Ultimately, these contradictions will be the starting point for my investigation in which I describe literary texts as a
means of staging and, as I will argue, harmonising the conflicts of our
dealing with the environment.
2.1 Ecocriticism Between the Disciplines

In the wake of the development of contemporary environmental conFHUQV IURP WKHLU VRFLRSROLWLFDO FRQWH[W H[DPLQHG LQ 5DFKHO &DUVRQV
Silent Spring3 and in the broader context of environmental philosophy
(e.g. in Blackstone 1974; Naess 1973; Sylvan 1993), ecocriticism as a
discipline of cultural and literary studies has evolved over the last few
years from a rather exotic field of research into a prominent branch of
scholarly inquiry. The challenge that ecocriticism faces now on the
YHUJH RI LWV LQVWLWXWLRQDO DQG LQWHOOHFWXDO LQWHJUDWLRQ +HLVH
3
In choosing this book as a symbolic starting point for contemporary debates that
can be related to ecocriticism I follow the argumentation of, for instance, Garrard
2004: 1; Heise 2008: 160 & passim and Radkau 2011: 26-32.
25
289) is twofold: it lies in its lack of theoretical sophistication and on

HFRFULWLFLVPVSRVLWLRQEHWZHHQYDULRXVLQWHOOHFWXDOGLVFRXUVHV. In fact,
ecocriticism is an inchoate interface to ethics, the sciences and literary
studies, and while this in-betweeness is often understood as an interdisciplinary advantage, it certainly poses serious problems as well. In
other words, ecocriticism is built on a theoretical conflict. I will discuss this conflict and the theoretical aporias arising from it in the following chapters. Taking these ecocritical aporias as a strong proposition to regard the literary text as an aesthetic event in its own right, I
discuss my approach of such an ecocritical reading practice in Sections 2.3 and 4.3. Before I do so, however, I will survey the history of
those philosophical and scientific discourses that ecocriticism, from
the very beginning, understood as a kind of interdisciplinary backup.
While the interdisciplinary character of ecocriticism has certainly
helped to broaden the scope of its critique, the variety of theoretical
preliminaries and conceptual differences has led to confusing, theoretical antagonisms. This can be seen as another reason why it is considered impossible to tell the story of ecocriticism in a coherent, linear
fashion.4 However, I will try to do so by using and, eventually, complementing .DWH 6RSHUV YDOXDEOH GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKUHH HFRlogical discourses of nature.
In What is Nature? (1995), Soper points out how problematic ecological discourses are on the level of theory because they too often
uncritically blend incommensurable discursive fields (123-6). Focussing first and foremost on the arguments of social constructivists and
positivist realists, she concludes that the conflict between different
notions of nature can be dealt with if we learn to distinguish different
usages of the concept of nature, VLQFHRXUUHVSRQVHFDQRQO\EHFRnducted from a position which recognizes how difficult it is to refer to
WKH ODQGVFDSH RQH LV VHHNLQJ WR FRQVHUYH VLPSO\ DV QDWXUH
6KHDGGUHVVHVWKLVSUREOHPE\LGHQWLI\LQJWKUHHUROHVZKLFKQDWXUH
can be called upon to play in ecological discussion [...@ WKH PHWaSK\VLFDO WKH UHDOLVW DQG WKH OD\ RU VXUIDFH LGHDV RI QDWXUH
1RWDEO\ WKH WKUHH UROHV 6RSHU WDONV DERXW VHHP WR FRLQFLGH
ZLWK HFRFULWLFLVPV PDMRU LQIOXHQFHV +RZHYHU , ZLOO VKRZ WKDW KHU
FRQFHSWRIWKHOD\LGHD of nature blends two incommensurable fields
4
The model of WKHthree waves of ecocriticism is relatively popular, and I refer to

this idea in Chapter 2.1.3. It has, however, also been criticised for its forced teleological stance and its exclusion of, for instance, eco-feminism.
26
because it combines immediate perception and cultural representation.

It is here that ecocriticism has a critical say in the matter.
Soper describes the first of the three roles of nature as follows: the
metaphysical role relates to philosophy, ZKLFKGHILQHVQDWXUHDVWKH
FRQFHSWWKURXJKZKLFKKXPDQLW\WKLQNVLWVGLIIHUHQFHDQGVSHFLILFLW\
(155). Soper here implicitly comments on the ecofeminist critique of a
rationalist dualism (see Plumwood 1993) for she maiQWDLQVWKDWLQD
IRUPDO VHQVH WKH ORJLF RI QDWXUH DV WKDW ZKLFK LV RSSRVHG WR WKH
KXPDQRUWKHFXOWXUDOLVSUHVXSSRVHGWRDQ\GHEDWHVDERXWWKHLnterpretations to be placed on the distinction and the content to be given
WRWKHLGHDV6RSHU55). That is to say, Soper maintains that
the relationship between the human and the nonhuman is still the most
fundamental of questions so fundamental in fact that Western thinking completely depends on it (Chapter 6.4 will come back to this question with regard to the literary negotiations of posthumanism).
7KH VHFRQG UHDOLVW UROH RI QDWXUH UHIHUV WR VWUXFWXUHV SURFHVVHV
and causal powers that are constantly operative within the physical
ZRUOG (155). With this description, Soper refers to the natural sciHQFHV ,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR QRWH WKDW VFLHQFH DQG WKH QRWLRQ RI DQ HxWUDWH[WXDOZRUOGDUHQRWGLVPLVVHGE\6RSHUZKRPDLQWDLQVWKDWWKHUH
is LQGHHG DQ RQWRORJLFDO GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH LGHDV ZH KDYH RI
QDWXUH DQG WKDW ZKLFK WKH LGHDV DUH DERXW (151). But it is likewise
notable that Soper directs our attention to the fact that scientific discourses also influence other discursive fields. This makes both science
and scientific discourse important objects of ecocritical analysis.
Soper identifies a thLUGUROHLQWHUPVRIWKHOD\RUVXUIDFHFRnFHSW 7KLV FRQFHSW DFFRXQWV IRU WKH QDWXUH RI LPPHGLDWH H[SHULHQFH
DQGDHVWKHWLFDSSUHFLDWLRQ,WLVUHPDUNDEOHWKDW6RSHUGRHVQRW
differentiate between immediate experience and the mediated response of cultural artefacts, which already contain various discursive
influences. In actual fact, this differentiation is one of the core issues
of ecocriticism. However, Soper does see a clear distinction between
aesthetic response and both science and philosophy. Accordingly, I
agree with her model in that I adhere to the distinctions between philosophy, science and a third discourse. However, I disagree that the
surface concept is sufficient to complete this discursive field. This
study maps the very field in order to show that the literary discourse
RIDHVWKHWLFVGRHVGLIIHUIURPPHUHOD\DSSUHFLDWLRQQRWEHFDXVHLWLV
more abstract or arcane but because it creates perspectives that outdo
strictly philosophical and scientific approaches DV ZHOO DV OD\
27
coQFHSWVin certain respects. I therefore understand ecocritical literary

studies as the means to scrutinise this potential and discuss the tension
EHWZHHQLPPHGLDWHH[SHULHQFHDQGIRUPVRIFXOWXUDOPHGLDWLRQ7KH
third category needs to be extended from WKHLGHDRIOD\SHUFHSWLRQ
to one of cultural mediation and transformations, and it will certainly
benefit from an inclusion of literary-theoretical perspectives. Thus, I
hope to be able to alleviate WKH YDJXHQHVVWKDW FRQIODWLQJ RUGLQDULO\
observable fHDWXUHVRIWKHZRUOG6RSHUDQGWKHLUUROHLQ
the aesthetic discourses of literature causes. This means that disentangling the three discursive roles in terms of their philosophical and
scientific influences on ecocriticism and the role of literary perspecWLYHV RQ WKH VXUIDFH RI WKH QDWXUDO ZRUOG ZLOO EH QHFHVVDU\ IRU P\
attempts at eventually going deeper than the surface.
2.1.1 Environmental Philosophy

Many introductions to environmental philosophy name Henry David
Thoreau, Albert Schweitzer or Aldo Leopold as the predecessors of
modern environmental philosophy and thus betray a Euro- and
Americentric bias.5 But the history of environmental concerns is much
longer and by no means restricted to European and American notions.
Environmental philosophy informs numerous non-Western schools of
thought, postcolonial grassroots and writer activism, as the increased
attention of ecocriticism in these fields has brought to the fore (Curtin
2005; Guha & Martnez-Alier 1997; Roos & Hunt 2010). Moreover,
the historical frame one may argue for depends on the initial question.
Modernity, with its discourses of rationality and science, is a possible
candidate for scrutiny in the context of, for example, studies of
human-animal relations (Armstrong 2008). Yet ancient Greek and
5RPDQGHEDWHVRIUXUDOLW\DQGXUEDQLW\ZKLFKHQGRUVHGERWKQRVWDlJLDIRUDJUDULDQUXVWLFLW\DQGVHQWLPHnt for the countryside as a sigQLILFDQW SKLORVRSKLFDO LGHDO (Bunce 1994: 5), also sound familiar to
ecocritical ears. It is therefore comparably easy to significantly widen
the scope and historical range of studies of environmental thought as
WKH HQYLURQPHQW KDV of course always been an important aspect of
5
Even in Radkau 2011, which VHWRXWWREHDZRUOGKLVWRU\RIHQYLURQPHQWDOLVP

RQO\IRXURXWRIWZHOYHKHURLQHVRIJUHHQWKLQNLQJGRQRWFRPHIURP(XURSHRU
the USA (see 282-336).
28
human life. An example of such a comprehensive focus is given by

Max Oelschlaeger, who argues that humanity caused its own IDOO
IURPJUDFHLQ1HROLWKLFWLPHV when newly settled human beings established the divide between their proto-FXOWXUDOKDELWDWDQGZLOGHrQHVV WKXV KXPDQLVLQJ WKH ODQGVFDSH and initiating a millennia-long
process of misconceptions about nature, the abuse of nature, and,
eventually, an estrangement from nature (Oelschlaeger 1991 and, for a
comparable argument, White 1967).
This chapter, however, seeks to exemplify an impasse of environmental ethics and philosophy that emerges when such ethicophilosophical stances are applied to ecocriticism. The reasons for this
impasse can be traced back to the earliest accounts of environmental
philosophy but it becomes most apparent in those recent, philosophical texts that have been taken as a basis for ecocritical studies and
that constitute what environmental historian Joachim Radkau calls the
JUHDWFKDLQUHDFWLRQRIWKHV (Radkau 2011: 134-8, my translation). I will therefore briefly comment on the respective discourses in
WKHAge of Ecology6HVVLRQV in order to then outline the
problematic aspects of these environmental(-ist), philosophical and
ethical discourses in the context of ecocriticism.6
The twentieth century saw a shift away from an unchallenged anthropocentrism towards what Margot Norris haV WHUPHG WKH biocentric tradition of thinking (1985: 1; see also Lemm 2009). The concept
RIWKHKXPDQregarded as the unquestioned centre of philosophical
humanism and concern for millennia, was met with a wide range of
critique from various branches of philosophical inquiry. Either threatened by the prospect of vanishing like a face in the sand (as Foucault
famously predicted: see Foucault 1971: 387), or being gazed at by
animals before whom humans are always naked (as Derrida (2008)
observed), or simply realising that the tradition of enlightenment and
European humanism might not have proven to be the universal salva6
There is good reason to include the last 200 years in a historical analysis, although
I do not have the space here to provide such an analysis. Timothy Clark has arJXHGIRUH[DPSOHWKDWZKLOH>F@RQFHUQZLWKWKHHQYLURQPHQWLQWKHEURDGVHQVH
LVQHFHVVDULO\DVROGDVKXPDQFXOWXUHRQHFDQWUDFHEDFNWKHLQLWLDOLPSHWXVRI
modern ecocriticiVP >@ LQ D EURDGO\ URPDQWLF WUDGLWLRQ RI RSSRVLWLRQ WR WKH
GHVWUXFWLYH WHQGHQFLHV RI HQOLJKWHQPHQW LGHDOV 6HH DOVR %DWH
Bate 2000; and Kroeber 1994. For a critical assessment of the connection between
Romanticism and environmentalism/ecocriticism, see Morton 2007 (especially
Chapter 2).
29
tion it was believed to be (which postcolonial studies have shown

repeatedly), human beings have felt more and more uncertain about
their centrality and the central place of humanism. The specific critiques are highly heterogeneous, which is why the scathing antimoralism of Friedrich Nietzsche may be quoted in the same passage
as ethical deductions in the vein of a preference utilitarianism that
cites Jeremy Bentham; or why ecofeminist readings of the links between environmental destruction and the oppression of the female
body may be found side by side with Heideggerian ideas of man
GZHOOLQJSRHWLcally (Heidegger 1971).
Disentangling these notions in order to arrive at a coherent environmental philosophy has been a difficult task, and it still is. More
difficult, however, is a thorough, philosophical meta-reflexion on the
various stances of thinking, for the ethical discussion of nature has
reached a stage in which a general critique of reason by means of
reason has become necessary. The task can thus, without exaggeration, be described as quixotic. To that effect, the debate on ethics and
the environment has evolved more and more into an either/or scenario
where one is forced to decide for rationality, humanity and reason, or
argue against it, risking problematic or inconsistent statements as the
consequence.7 It has thus fostered a conflict of diverging moral systems, and it has engendered new dichotomies although initially, dichotomous thinking was supposed to be abolished. The most obvious
example of such new dichotomies is the distinction of anthropocentric
and ecocentric thinking. A brief discussion of it in the works of Aldo
Leopold, Richard Sylvan, Arne Naess and Murray Bookchin will
highlight the problem of what seems to be the most profound antagonism ecocritical ethics has to face.
/HRSROGLVEHVWNQRZQIRUKLVRIWHQTXRWHGODQGHWKLF, which was
outlined in his 1949 A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and
There (1968).8 For Leopold, land ethics means both a philosophical
and an ecological-evolutionary process. Accordingly, ecological ethLFVLVXQGHUVWRRGDVDOLPLWDWLRQRQIUHHGRPRIDFWLRn in the struggle
for existence (quoted in Callicott & Palmer 2004: 9). For Leopold,
the development of ethics follows a pattern of expansion that he sees
7
A number of scholars have addressed the paradoxical state of affairs by different

means. See Mitterer 2011; Nussbaum 2001; Nussbaum 2007; Plumwood 2002.
Since my edition comes without paginatioQ , FLWH IURP &DOOLFRWW DQG 3DOPHUV
anthology Environmental Philosophy (Vol I) (2004).
30
at work already in the moral frameworks of the Mosaic Decalogue and

the Christian Golden Rule. That is to say, Leopold detects a development towards a procedural enhancement from individual to societal
moral considerations (10). Thus, he sees the extension of an ethics of
the land as a mere step in the sequence. He ultimately aims at extending WKHERXQGDULHVRIFRPPXQLW\WRLQFOXde soils, waters, plants, and
animals, or collectively: the land (10), and it is this enlargement that
conVWLWXWHV KLV community conFHSW The community concept, he
claims, does not need to be extended because of shared common features of, say, mammals, or because the ecosystem is regarded as a
biotic organism, but due to the inVLJKWWKDWWKHFRQFHSWRIhuman supremacy simply did not prove effective:
In human history, we have learned (I hope) that the conqueror role is eventually
self-defeating. Why? Because it is implicit in such a role that the conqueror
knows, ex cathedra, just what makes the community clock tick, and just what and
who is valuable, and what and who is worthless, in community life. It always
turns out that he knows neither, and this is why his conquests eventually defeat
themselves. (quoted in Callicott & Palmer 2004: 11)
Ursula Heise has shown this analysis to be deeply grounded in the

American idea of land and self-contained rural life (Heise 2008: 29,
35-6; see also Bunce 1994: 58-9), which is only one of the many concepts that DUHFRQFHUQHGZLWKDVHQVHRISODFHRUDUHGLVFRYHU\DQG
FXOWLYDWLRQ WKHUHRI :KLOH +HLVH FRQWH[WXDOLVHV /HRSROGV QRWLRQ RI
the biotic community within the larger theoretical branch of bioregionalism, the attachment to place is also relevant in the postcolonial context since much postcolonial scholarship has been concerned
with the role of place.9
With regard to the dichotomy of anthropocentric and ecocentric
WKLQNLQJ KRZHYHU /HRSROGV QRWLRQ RI D ODQG HWKLFV LV VLJQLILFDQW
because his idea of an ethical community is clearly anthropocentric,
DOWKRXJK /HRSROGVFRQFHSWV DUH JHQHUDOO\ FLWHG DV H[DPSOHV RI HFocentric thinking. Arguably, extending the community concept to animals and the soil does sound ecocentric, but his famous exhortation to
WKLQNOLNHDPRXQWDLQpoints to an important tension. In the ecocrit9
The works of critics such as Homi Bhabha, Mary-Louise Pratt, and Edward Said
can generally be said to be concerned with spatiality and have all influenced
postcolonial theory profoundly. For a survey of theories of space and postcolonial
theory, see Neumann 2009: 115-38. In the context of postcolonial ecocriticism,
see Nixon 2005.
31
ical context, the phrase is often cited as a radical instance of

non-anthropocentric thinking, but Radkau, who describes it as envirRQPHQWDOLVPV VHPDQWLFDOO\ GDUN VORJDQ 5DGNDX my
translation) contrasts it with the original context: Leopold discussed
IRUPV RI VXVWDLQDEOH HFRORJLFDO PDQDJHPHQW DQG FRQFUHWHO\ >/HoSROG@PHDQWWKDWWKHPRXQWDLQIHDUVWKHGHHUDQGQRWWKHZROI5Ddkau 2011: 652 n205, my translation). Therefore, people must understand that in order to save the mountain as an eco-system (as it has
been defined by human beings), hunting deer might be more important
than hunting the notoriously unpopular wolf. Such a form of hunter
stewardship, however, is clearly anthropocentric.
In contrast to Leopold, Richard Sylvan does not expect and suggest
a strengthening of existing ethical convictions, and he does not argue
IRUHFRORJLFDOVWHZDUGVKLSLQWKHVHQVHRI/HRSROGVWKLQNLQJOLNHD
PRXQWDLQ. Instead, he claims that WKH GRPLQDQW :HVWHUQ YLHZ LV
simply inconsistent with an environmental ethic according to it
nature is the dominion of man and he is free to deal with it as he
SOHDVHV6\OYDQ Tuoted in Callicott & Palmer 2004: 25). Sylvan therefore opposes LeopROG VWDWLQJ WKDW LW LV QRW DV /HRSROG
seems to think, that [...] an extension of traditional morality LV Uequired LQVWHDG KH DUJXHV ZH QHHG a change in the ethics, in attiWXGHVYDOXHVDQGHYDOXDWLRQV; emphasis orig.). Stating that common human concepts of ethics do not suffice, Sylvan argues for the
establishment of areas on the planet that must be kept free from any
KXPDQ LQWHUIHUHQFH 7KH EDVLF KXPDQ FKDXYLQLVP DV KH FDOOV LW
behind human interference with nature ultimately turns every natural
site into an economic one and thus exploits and destroys nature an
LGHD WKDW +HLGHJJHUV FRQFHSW RI QDWXUH DV D VWDQGLQJ UHVHUYH KDV
also explored (see Garrard 2004: 30-2). His focus on wilderness also
shares some aspects with the ideas expounded in the context of Arne
1DHVV'HHS(FRORJ\movement,10 and those ideas certainly seek to
employ an ecoFHQWULF SHUVSHFWLYH 3DWULFN &XUU\ VXEVXPHV 6\OYDQV
ZULWLQJ XQGHU WKH KHDGOLQH RI 'DUN *UHHQ RU 'HHS (FRFHQWULF
10
'HVSLWH3DWULFN&XUU\VDVVHVVPHQW (2006: 81), it is easy to find important differences: Sylvan stresses the importance of wilderness as something that must
strictly be kept apart from human influence while Naess argues for the wild and
the natural to be part of human beings. Thus, destroying wilderness is, according
to Naess, problematic not EHFDXVH VRPH YDOXH RXW WKHUH LV GHVWUR\HG EXW EHFDXVH WR GHVWUR\ QDWXUH RU WR NLOO DQRWKHU FUHDWXUH LV LQ VRPH VHQVH DQ DFW RI
vioOHQFHDJDLQVWRQHVHOI(see Clark 2011: 24).
32
(WKLFV Curry 2006: 81), thereby following Naess, who regarded

HQYLURQPHQWDOHWKLFVDVGLVFXVVHGDWWKHWLPHRIKLVZULWLQJDVVKDlORZ, RUOLJKWJUHHQ&RQWUDU\WR/HRSROGZKRDUJXHVWKDWKXPDQV
need to recover their closeness to nature, Sylvan insists on the separation of hXPDQVDQGQDWXUHVLQFHQDWXUHLVXQGHUVWRRGDVVRPHWKLQJ
ideally devoid of human contact and, thus, utterly alien. Ultimately,
this separation betrays the anthropocentric element of ecocentrism
VLQFHWKHKXPDQLVWKHIL[HGSRLQWIURPZKLFKQDWXUHFDQ be determined.
Approaching wilderness preservation philosophically, Sylvan esWDEOLVKHVDV\VWHPWKDWKHFDOOVdeep green theory. For Curry, deep
JUHHQ WKHRU\ LV SHUKDSV RQH RI WKH PRVW SURPLVLQJ HWKLFDOWKHRULHV
\HWEHFDXVH>X@QOLNH1DHVVDQG6HVVLRQVYHUVLRQVRI'HHS(FRORJ\
[...] it is a fully and overtly ethical WKHRU\HPSKDVLVRULJ.). Interestingly, Curry does not explicate this claim and, quite tellingly,
SUDLVHV WKH WKHRU\V UDWLRQDOLW\ DQG GLVPLVVHV LW DOPRVW LQ WKH VDPH
instant: while KH GHVFULEHV 6\OYDQV WKHRU\ DV RYHUWO\ DQG IXOO\
WKHRUHWLFDOKHFULWLFLVHV6\OYDQVDWWDFKPHQWWRUDWLRQDOLVPDVEHLQJ
the point WKDWZHDNHQVKLVRZQFDVH,WUHPDLQVXQFOHDUZK\D
rational approach must be seen as problematic, especially since Sylvan
defines the characteristics of deep green theory as philosophical imperatives that must be subjected to criticism and logical verification,
for example, when he argues that by means of analytical deduction
WKHKXPDQQRQ-human distinction is not ethically significant&XUU\
2006: 81, emphasis orig.). Maybe ecocentrism and thus nonanthropocentrism requires a complete suspension of rationality? Then,
the rationalist impetus of deep green ethics would belie any claim for
radical ecocentrism. Thus, both cases illuminate an impasse of rationalist thinking and non-rationalist value systems, which shows itself
clearly in the seemingly incommensurate notions of anthropocentric
and ecocentric values in the respective moral frameworks.
It is interesting that in spite of its strict systematics and the rationalLVPRI6\OYDQVDSSURDFKGHHSJUHHQWKHRU\LVXQGHUVWRRGDVSDUWRI
WKH 'HHS (FRORJ\ PRYHPHQW LQDVPXFK DV LW VKDUHV WKH NH\ YDOXHRULHQWDWLRQWKLQNLQJOLNHDPRXQWDLQLQVWHDGRIWKLQNLQg like a
FDVKUHJLVWHU6\OYDQ %HQQHWW7KHUKHWRULFDOUHFRXUVH
to Leopold is telling. Although Sylvan understands the basis of deep
green theory to be more radical and, eventually, more effective than
/HRSROGV FRQFHSW RI D UHGHILQLWLRQ DQG extension of the imagined
moral community, Sylvan finally reverts not only to metaphorical
33
ODQJXDJHEXWWR/HRSROGVYHU\SKUDVLQJ7KHDSSURDFKRIERWKPRUDO
frameworks culminates in a literary expression that transcends, or
evades, logical deduction and empirical inspection.11 That is to say, by
concluding a systematic moral framework with a metaphor, the idea of
WKLQNLQJOLNHDPRXQWDLQEHFRPHVDNLQGRIGHFRQVWUXFWLYHMHWW\, a
means of destabilising what the systematic hierarchy seemed to suggest (see Derrida 1990: 84). With Leopold and with Sylvan, we must
ask ourselves how this rhetoric can be connected with or even thought
of as a form of praxis. Like Leopold, Sylvan resorts to metaphorical
language in his definition of an ethical community. His principal
ethical imperative thus undoubtedly points towards literary rhetoric.
8QGHUVWDQGLQJWKLVUKHWRULFDVWKHGHFRQVWUXFWLYHMHWW\ZLWKLQWKH
discourse will be the very foundation on which I build a specifically
literary approach to the conflict between anthropocentric and ecocentric thinking. Thus, I argue, the focus on literary language is not only
important because environmental discourse has become popular
PRVWO\ WKURXJK >WKH@ UHFRXUVH WR D VHW RI SRSXODU LPDJHV DQG QDUUaWLYH SDWWHUQV that connects environmentalist rhetoric and fictional
literature, as Heise reminds us (2008: 22). Even more so, an analysis
of literary language might be helpful if we want to better understand
the means of cultural imagination, both as a catalyst of environmental
crisis and its potential for changing it. The potential for cultural diagnosis, critique and, eventually, change is often negotiated in literature,
which gives fiction and its narrative engagement with aporias such as
that discussed above a particular importance (see Zapf 2001: 93-4).
$UQH 1DHVV 'HHS (FRORJ\ FDQ TXLWH HDVLO\ EH DSSURDFKHG IURP
the same perspective; and it makes sense too to consider to what extent the aesthetic dimension of Deep Ecological ethics appeals to literary critics who have embraced many RI 1DHVV FODLPV HJ 3ODW]
2000). While literary scholars have been attracted by the radicalism
and vigour of the bio-egalitarian vision of Deep Ecology, philosophers
and social-ecologists strongly refute the same aspects as being misanthropic, or as relying too much on hollow, New Age rhetoric, presuming human identity to be restricted to the natural environment (see
Garrard 2004: 22-3). Deep Ecology dismisses strictly analytical
11
In the literature that I have consulted for this study, only Joachim Radkau explicitly mentions the context of ecological stewardship while in many other studies,
WKLQNLQJ OLNH D PRXQWDLQ LV PHDQW DV D PHWDSKRULF ZD\ RI FODLPLQJ D JHQHUDO
ecocentric empathy in humans.
34
branches of philosophy and traditional ethics. All biological life is

understood as having equal value, and since a sense of the human can
only be maintained in connection with other species and whole ecosystems, Deep Ecology has repeatedly refuted human distinctness. Its
bottom-line, comprising SURQRXQFHPHQWV >@ WKDW RYHUSRSXODWLRQ
and ecosystemic imperilment are more pressing problems than human
poverty and disease, KRZHYHU KDV WKHUHIRUH LQFXUUHG FKDUJHV RI
DQWLKXPDQLVPDQGHFRIDVFLVP%XHOO
In that context, the distinction EHWZHHQVKDOORZDQGGHHSHWhics is telling. Naess endorses a prescriptive stance in what he calls a
mere description of the two movements of environmental concern by
FDOOLQJ WKH ILUVW WKH VKDOORZ HFRORJ\ PRYHPHQW DQG WKH RWKHU WKH
'HHS (FRORJ\ PRYHPHQW VXFK D GLFKRWRP\ FDQ DOVR EH IRXQG LQ
WKHGLVWLQFWLRQRIOLJKWDQGGDUNJUHHQHFRORJ\TXRWHGDERYH%\
WKHVDPHWRNHQWKH'HHSDQG(FRORJ\WRREHFRPHVFDSLWDOLVHG
DORQJWKHZD\8QOLNHWKHVKDOORZSUDFWLFDODQGFRQFHGLQJIRUPVRI
environmentalism, Deep Ecology represents a doctrine or belief
HSLWRPLVHG E\ D VHW RI HLJKW FRPPDQGPHQWV DV SXW IRUZDUG E\
George Sessions in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century (1995: 49-53).
1DHVV DQG 6HVVLRQV HPSOR\ WKH WHUP HFRVRSK\, and Naess asserts
that
it should [...] be borne in mind that the norms and tendencies of the Deep Ecology
movement are not derived from ecology by logic or induction. [...] Many of the
formulations [of his deep ecological outline] are rather vague generalizations,
only tenable if made more precise in certain directions. (Naess 2004: 54)
For literary criticism, such a stance may work, since literary

VFKRODUV DUH IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH LGHD RI WKHRU\ DV D VHOI-reflexive asVHVVPHQW RIWKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI >DQ@DSSURDFK %RGH 6: 91) and
the paradoxical and distinctly non-scientific idea that theory is in fact
sometimes practice (see also Phillips 2003: 72-3). But in science
(ecology) and philosophy (ecosophy) such a stance turns into quasireligious doxa. The claim that philosophy can be a kind of unverifiDEOH ZLVGRP ZKLFK LV RSHQO\ QRUPDWLYH >VLQFH@ LW FRQWDLQV both
norms, rules, postulates, value priority announcements and hypotheses
FRQFHUQLQJWKHVWDWHRIDIIDLUVLQRXUXQLYHUVH1DHVVquoted in Callicott & Palmer 2004: 55) has led other philosophers to reject Deep
Ecology for its lack of a coherent moral system and because it is ignorant of the socio-political indebtedness of environmentalist and
ethical debates. In neglecting its indebtedness to the social world,
35
Deep Ecology tries to establish a new metaphysics rather than a pragmatist approach. But how can a metaphysical approach be ecocentric
and not presuppose human distinctiveness? The impasse of anthropocentric and ecocentric thinking, and the problems of accounting for
the environment by means of a moral system, are thus not resolved but
reinforced. As Soper points out, DOORXUHFRORJLFDOLQMXQFWLRQV>@DUH
FOHDUO\URRWHGLQWKHLGHDRIKXPDQGLVWLQFWLYHQHVVDnd any division
between humanity and nature cannot be overcome by metaphysical
discourse (Soper 1995: 40).
7KLV PL[WXUH RI PLVWUXVW WRZDUGV VRFLDOO\ RUJDQLVHG DFWLRQ UHaVRQDEOH WKLQNLQJ DQG DQ LGHDOLVDWLRQ RI SUHPRGHUQLW\ using concepts of noble savagery, as well as an esoteric blending of East-Asian
philosophy and American Beat Poetry (see Devall 1980) makes it
difficult to picture the claims of Deep Ecology as social practice. The
radicalism of its principles understandably excites the literary imagination as well as the practice of literary criticism. This is because it
leads to visions of radically different, possible worlds and narrative
DFFRXQWVRIWKHHQGRIKXPDQLW\VVXSUHPDF\*HQHUDOO\VSHDNLQJLW
poses a challenge to the empathic imagination per se. Any attempt at
integration into an ethical discourse, however, must turn out to be
problematic.
Murray Bookchin is one of the strongest critics of the notions proposed by Naess and Sessions. He sees himself as a Social Ecologist,
DQGE\LQWURGXFLQJWKHVRFLDOWRWKHGHEDWHRQHFRORJ\KHUHGHILQHV
ecology as a concept concerned with the social environment and natural HFRORJ\+HVWDUWVIURPWKHLGHDWKDWHFRORJ\KDVVKRZQ>@WKDW
EDODQFH LQ QDWXUH LV DFKLHYHG E\ RUJDQLF YDULDWLRQ DQG FRPSOH[LW\
(Bookchin 2004a: 8). This leads him to thinking about anarchist, leftist utopias that thrive on the liberating power of spontaneity DUeGLVFRYHU\QRXULVKHGE\HFRORJ\)RU%RRNFKLQWKHVRFLDOZRUOG
is part of the ecological environment. In a way, this view helps to
criticise the idea of radical ecocentrism. Marina Fischer-Kowalski
GHVFULEHV 6RFLDO (FRORJ\ DV D VFKRODUO\ SHUVSHFWLYHWKDW UHJDUGVVocieties and their environments as biophysically linked systems, and
she maintains that Social Ecology attempts to describe ecological
questions with regard to their capitalist and economic dimensions
(quoted in Buell 2008: 146). Thus, Bookchin tries to bring the idea of
human distinctiveness back into a discussion that has been perceived
E\ PDQ\ DV D EODFN KROH RI KDOI-digested and ill-IRUPHG LGHDV
(Bookchin 2004b: 266) and that arrogantly and sometimes cynically
36
describes the suffering of people in the so-called Third World as a

natural given. Bookchin rightly criticises that if Deep Ecology accepts
WKH ODZ RI 1DWXUH DQG WKXV MXVWifies human suffering, it legitimises
the Western standards of living (including environmental degradation)
DVDQHTXDOO\QDWXUDOO\JLYHQFRQGLWLRQ
+RZHYHU %RRNFKLQV EOXUULQJ RI HFRORJLFDO WHUPLQRORJ\ LV SURblematic too. Bookchin, like other social constructivists of whom I will
speak later, refrains from giving an exact definition of his notion of
HFRORJ\DQGWKXVPLVVHVWKHFKDQFHWRDGGUHVVWKHWHQVLRQEHWZHHQ
his critique of biologist rhetoric and his own idea of a cultural ecology. By refuting the idea of a clear border between discourses on nature and cultural or political practice, he reifies the conflict that he
tries to address and runs the risk of reducing the environment to a
social issue. However, Bookchin has a point when he argues that
ecology and its findings are subject to abuse in social dimensions; by
thus highlighting the constructive character of our perception of the
natural world, Bookchin disenchants the Deep Ecological reliance on
the moral power of the natural. He states that
WKHZRUGHFRORJ\LVQRPDJLFWHUPWKDWXQORFNVWKHUHDOVHFUHWRIRXUDEXVHRI
nature. It is a word that can be as easily abused, distorted, and tainted as words
OLNHGHPRFUDF\DQGIUHHGRP1RUGRHVWKHZRUGHFRORJ\SXWXVDOO whoHYHU ZH PD\ Ee in the same boat against environmentalists who are simply
trying to make a rotten society work by dressing it in green leaves and colourful
flowers, while ignoring the deep-seated roots of our ecological problems. (Bookchin 2004b: 264)
He goes on to dismiss 'HHS(FRORJ\E\FDOOLQJLWDEL]DUUHPL[RI

Hollywood and Disneyland, spiced with homilies from Taoism, Buddhism, spiritualism, reborn Christianity, and, in some cases, ecoIDVFLVP (Bookchin 2004b: 264), and by referring to the eclectic outfit
of 1DHVV DQG 6HVVLRQV VWDQFH RI KROLVP )RU VRPHRQH LQWHUHVWHG LQ
the discursive representation of concepts such as truth and the interconnection of nature and society, however, the rhetoric Bookchin employs entails in itself a number of surprising problematic generalisations. This can be seen most clearly when he argues that a devoted
interest in, and an evaluation of, nature is always potentially dangerRXV EHFDXVH WKLV NLQG RI FUXGH HFR-brutalism led Hitler to fashion
theories of blood and soil that led to the transport of millions of people
to murder camps like Auschwitz (265). Such a statement is not meant
as a helpful critique and the concepts and contexts cannot be conflated
37
LQ VXFK D ZD\ DV WR LGHQWLI\ FRQFHUQ IRU RQHV RZQ KDELWDW DQG WKH
local environment with the national socialist ideology of Blut und
Boden (blood and soil). It is particularly from the postcolonial perspective on place and displacement that such a stance must be reassessed critically.
Thus hovering between merely smirking statemeQWVVXFKDV'HHS
(FRORJ\ LV WKH IDVW IRRG RI TXDVLUDGLFDO HQYLURQPHQWDOLVWV 272) as
the concluding statement after a discussion of the obscure and fuzzy
thinking underlying some of its theoretical concepts, and a fierce disPLVVDORIWKRVHFRQFHSWVDVHco-EDEEOHLQJHQHUDO%RRNFKLQVVFDWhing tone does not help his argument at all. By dismissing the Deep
(FRORJLVW FRQFHSW RI WKH 6HOI DVVHOI-in-Self where WKH 6HOI VWDQGV
for wholeness (Bookchin 2004b: 269), KLV WKHVLV WKDW >W@KH 3DOHolithic shaman [...] is the predecessor of the Pharaoh, the Buddha, and,
LQPRUHUHFHQWWLPHVRI+LWOHU6WDOLQDQG0XVVROLQL (269) is a good
example of how Bookchin belies his own critique by excessively simplifying historical development, mistaking scathing critique for plausible argument. However, the problems are not merely rhetorical. Most
importantly, his refutation of ecocentric thinking does not solve the
initial ethical question: what is the role and place of the human?
Even this brief comparison of concepts has shown that ideas of Social and Deep Ecology seem to be diametrically opposed, and that the
conflict between an anthropocentric and an ecocentric worldview is a
complex matter that is not likely to be resolved easily. As argued
above, Soper shows that our ecological ethics, disregarding whether
WKH\GHPDQGRIXVWRVDFULILFHRXURZQLQWHUHVWVWRWKRVHRIQDWXUHRU
WRSUHVHUYHQDWXUHLQWKHLQWHUHVWRIRXUIXWXUHZHOOEHLQJare rooted
in the idea of human distinctiveness (Soper 1995: 40). Even Deep
Ecology cannot step outside its philosophical and, thus, anthropogenic
context. Instead of dismissing it, Soper suggests that environmental
ethics should focus less on the means to obscure the dividing line between eco- and anthropocentrism and pDVV RQ WR GHEDWH WKH ZD\ LQ
which it is to be drawn, and [...] whether it is conceptualized as one of
kind or degree (40). In contemporary discourses, however, such an
assessment relies heavily on concepts of (scientific) ecology and risks
a naturalist reductionism many ecocritics hope to oppose at the same
WLPH :KLOH 6RSHU UHPLQGV XV WKDW >L@I QDWXUH GRHV JHQXLQHO\ KDYH
value independently of human estimation of it, then, strictly speaking,
we cannot know what it is, nor, a fortiori, applaud or condemn it
38
(255); and indeed, the question of the status of nature, and the status
of the human as well, remains unassured.
(FRFULWLFLVPKDVVKLIWHGWKHIRFXVIURPDQRWLRQRIQDWXUHWRRQH
RI HFRORJ\ simultaneously more scientific and systematic. However, Ursula Heise points to the fact that any environmental ethics that
relies on an extension and redefinition of ethical concerns must, first
and fRUHPRVWEHFXOWXUDOO\LPDJLQHG (2008: 36). ,WWKHUHIRUHUHVWV
entirely on the hope that such a cultural reimagination beyond existing
boundaries is possible (36). On the other hand, however, Heise
argues that the over-simplisWLF VORJDQV RI EDFN-to-QDWXUH and rejections of modernity as the era of alienation too easily gloss over the
fact that our holistic grasp of planet Earth has been made possible only
E\DODUJHVHWRIFXOWXUDOPHGLWDWLRQVDEVWUDFWNQRZOHGge, and technological apparatus (Heise 2008: 37). I agree with Heise, who mainWDLQVWKDWWKHWKHRUHWLFDOGHEDWHKDVDUULYHGDWDFRQFHSWXDOLPpasse
(7), and a brief discussion of the scientific influence on ecocriticism
will help us to understand the conflict arising from the enmeshment
with, and concurrent criticism of, scientific logic that this relation
entails.
2.1.2 Ecological Science

Science has played a pivotal role in the formation of ecocriticism. The
close relation between literary studies and science most notoriously
ecology12 is remarkable and leads, as Timothy Clark puts it, to the
GLIILFXOWSRVLWLRQRIQHHGLQJDWWKHVDPHtime, both to draw on scientific knowledge and expertise and also to criticise the social power and
intellectual authority of science (Clark 2011: 142). I have already
commented on this problematic conjunction above, and I now want to
elaborate on the problems of applying scientific notions to literary
theory and criticism, and then formulate the hermeneutic challenges
that can be deduced from this.
12
'DQD3KLOOLSVTruth of Ecology (2003) stands as the most comprehensive study of

the problematic relation of ecological science and ecocriticism and in fact, little
can be added to his critique. Thus, I am not going to give a detailed account of the
intellectual problems in bringing together ecology and literary criticism, but I will
RXWOLQH WKH DSRULD RI VFLHQWLILF VFKRODUVKLS ZLWK UHJDUG WR LWV KHUPHQHXWLFDO GLmension.
39
Much ecocritical terminology refers to ecology in a metaphoric or

loosely analogous way (see Clark 2011: 151-5). There are, however, a
number of approaches that take science seriously, from the original
HFRORJ\RIPLQG (Bateson 1972) DQGOLWHUDU\'DUZLQLVP (Carroll
2004) WR PRUH UHFHQW QRWLRQV RI PDWHULDO HFRFULWLcism (Iovino &
Oppermann 2012). These approaches focus on and refer to the natural
sciences and seek to establish a truly interdisciplinary perspective
EXWWKH\FDQQRWUHVROYHWKHWHQVLRQRIZKDW&ODUNKDVFDOOHGWKHWZR
VHQVHV RI HFRORJ\ (2011: 152): It is a scientific concept on the one
hand, and the value-bound concept used in ecocriticism on the other.
While the application of ecological vocabulary to the ecocritical
discussion has not taken place without difficulties and ongoing debate,
ecology as a scientific discipline poses some serious problems in itself. In his influential critique of the appropriation of concepts from
ecology in literary studies, Dana Phillips rejects the scientific authority of ecological knowledge since the history of ecology
has been marked by conflicts growing out of a lack of consensus about the parameters that should guide the statement of hypotheses and the conduct of research. In other words, ecologists have not been able to agree about what actually
counts as ecology. (Phillips 2003: 43)
Instead of being a clear-cut scientific discipline that provides terminology, ideas and, most importantly, forms of privileged wisdom, the
very nature of scientific ecology has been and still is subject to debate
in the context of the natural sciences. That is to say, ecological concepts and models are still regarded as being fuzzy and metaphorical.
For literary scholars, the most important aspect of ecology has
been, so far, its focus on ostensive wholeness, its balance, and its being a counterweight to the tendency of science towards mechanistic
reduction (from Cartesian thinking up to contemporary debates on the
genetic determination of free will). This view ascribes to ecology a
stance that it does not have any more: ecological scientists today regard ideas of a natural balance and the problematic concept of the
climax state as wishful thinking DV 3KLOOLSV UHPDUNV .
Thus, uncritically using ecological concepts for literary criticism interested in the harmony of nature is no longer appropriate (Phillips
2003: 51; Reichholf 2008). Phillips maintains that
[m]ore or less out of necessity, many ecologists have become quite sophisticated
about the theoretical and philosophical difficulties with which their discipline is
40

EHVHW7KHVHHFRORJLVWVXVHZRUGVOLNHWUXWKDQGODZRQO\YHU\WHQWDWLYHO\DQG
somewhat apologetically, if they use them at all. (Phillips 2003: 51)
This is why efforts to appeal to the authority of science, especially as a

counter-argument to poststructuralist abstraction and postmodernist
relativism, are ultimately condemned to fail. Although the idea of
KROLVP KDV EHHQ D PRWLYH RI HFRORJ\ VLQFH LWV EHJLQQLQJV LW ZDV D
poor alternative to reductionism [...]. Methodologically, it was a muddle; philosophically, it derived from dubious sources (Phillips 2003:
60, referring to Herbert Spencer).
Even if it were not, however, the problem remains that science is a
form of logos that cannot easily be applied in terms of an ethos. To
leap the epistemological gap means to be liable to the naturalistic fallacy. Moreover, as Clark suggests, science is often deeply implicated
LQSROLWLFVERWKDVDVXSSRUWDQGDUHVRXUFHIRUWKHWHFKQR-industrial
project of dominating the natural world (2011: 149). It therefore
seems fair to say that the idea of using ecology as a supplier of scientific vocabulary or concepts is exceedingly problematic.
Despite the problematic reformulation of ecological hypotheses in
ecocriticism, the blurring of logos and ethos leads to another conflict
that manifests itself in convictions that society might be organised
according to the principles of ecology (whatever these principles
PLJKWEHVLQFHQDWXUHNQRZVEHVW (see Phillips 2003: 63). In Chapter
2.2, where I discuss objections to ecological cultural studies and environmentalist practices in the broadest sense as they have been formulated by Andrew Ross, I will return to the social implications of the
nature/culture divide in greater detail and account for the problems
this debate causes in the context of ecocritical studies of postcolonial
literature. At the moment, however, it might suffice to point to the fact
that by deriving ideas of value from ecology or drawing on the authorLW\ RI VFLHQFH LQ JHQHUDO HFRFULWLFLVP UXQV WKH ULVN RI JLYLQJ QHZ
IRUPVRISRZHUto a science that might not even be completely understood or justly applied by ecocritical scholars (Clark 2011: 151). In
overlooking these problems, ecocriticism faces what Clark calls the
DQWLnomy of environmental criticism, D IRUP RI LQWHUSOD\ or
sometimes stand-off between work that stresses the cultural aspects
of various concepts of nature [...] and work that stresses the elements
of the natural within FXOWXUH (94, emphasis added).
The idea that society might be organised according to the prinFLSOHVRIQDWXUHLVDQ\WKLQJEXWQHZ,Wis present in biologist rhetoric
41
and ideology, which also permeate scientific language. In fact, such

narrative templates and the strategic emplotment of scientific thinking
dominate culture and the sciences (see Beer 1983; Beer 1996; Heise
2008; Zwierlein 2009). Accordingly, it is difficult to say whether it
ZDV HFRORJ\ WKDWKHOSHGSHRSOH WR HVWDEOLVK FRQFHSWV RIQDWXUDO Rrder, or whether these concepts had existed as an explanatory frame
before ecology as a discipline was formed in the early twentieth century. In any case, the conflation of literary studies and ecology must
be regarded as thoroughly problematic if we understand science at
least partially as a discourse rather than a URXWH WR ILQGLQJ WUXWK
These questions are discussed in science studies, and the works of
Donna Haraway or Bruno Latour, for example, raise awareness for the
problems that occur if we simply follow the assumption that there is
an objective knowledge to be derived from scientific investigation or
that scientific frameworks do not influence the objects of study fundamentally (Haraway 1989; Latour 1987). However, this does not
mean that literary and cultural scholars have to let go of the idea of
HFRORJ\ FRPSOHWHO\ DQG RSW IRU DQ HFRORJ\ ZLWKRXW QDWXUH 0RrWRQ LQ IDFW HFRFULWLFLVPV RULHQWDWLRQ WRZDUGV WKH HQYLURQPHQWDO
aspects of and in literature still makes sense if we agree with Joseph
0HHNHUVDVVHUWLRQWKDWHFRORJ\LVDQDQFLHQWWKHPHLQDUWDnd literature, however new it may be as a science (Meeker 1997: 7).
In his chapters on ecology, Phillips shows that some ecological
concepts might simply be tautological, or that they are all too soon
bereft of explanatory force (when freed of their ideological burden).
By the same token, however, ecocritics are well advised to keep in
PLQG3DWULFN&XUU\VMXVWLILFDWLRQIRUKLVXVHRIWKHWHUPLQKLVHFoORJLFDO HWKLFV >7@KHUH LV QR UHDVRQ WR DOORZ ELRORJLVWV SURprietary
ULJKWVRYHUHFRORJ\ (2006: 4). ,WIROORZVWKDWHFRORJ\FDQalso be
understood as a concept that is subject to ongoing cultural debate. One
might therefore object to Phillips, who maintains that the idea of the
environment is mystifying DQGYDJXH,WLVQRWQHFHVVDULO\DQRQFRnFHSWDZRUGZLWKRXWDGHILQLWLRQDQGODFNLQJDUHIHUHQW (2003: 74), as
QXPHURXV VWXGLHV FRQFHUQLQJ FRQFHSWV VXFK DV VHQVH RI SODFH RU
GZHOOLQJLQGLFDWH (see Goodbody 2011). And while it is important to
think of these notions as genuinely cultural conceptions of both social
and natural spaces, my own approach outlined in this study will highlight the relevance and usefulness of the concept of the environment in
the hermeneutic task of reading ecocritically.
42
(FRORJ\DQGWKHHQYLURQPHQWFDQEHXQGHUVWRRGZLWKUHJDUGWR
their adaptability in terms of a cultural project of environmental criticism or, as Curry writeVLQ WHUPV RI D FRPPRQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI D
metaphysical and/or political philosophy centred on nature (2006: 4).
0RUHLPSRUWDQWO\WKHHQYLURQPHQWFDQEHVHHQDVDFRQFHSWIRURQHV
hermeneutic situation. What needs to be achieved in both cases, however, is the sublation of the impasse of scientific influence outlined
above: to recognise that, on thH RQH KDQG VFLHQFH SOD\V D PDVVLYH
part in our awareness of the fact of ecocrisis; it supplies many of the
indicators outside of our personal experience, and virtually all of the
quantifiable and statistical ones (Curry 2006: 19; see also Heise
2008: 31, 37) and, on the other hand, that scientific objectivism often
leads to the mechanistic reductionism of modernity that ecocritics
object to. However, if literary studies seek to shed light on this dialectical relationship, and if literature is to have an effect as an aesthetic
discourse, it seems advisable not to rely too literally on scientific notions or the concept of scientific ecology at all. Ecocriticism might in
IDFWIDUHEHWWHUZLWKDFRQFHSWRIQDWXUHZLWKRXWHFRORJ\ a concept
which leaves behind the aporias inherent in the scientific grasp of the
environment.
2.1.3 Literary Studies and the Real

Without the backup of environmental philosophy and ecological sciHQFHZLOOHFRFULWLFLVPEHUHGXFHGWRWKHOD\GLPHQVLRQRILPPHGiate experience and aesthetic appreciation (Soper 1995: 156)? It does
not have to be, of course. Rather, it is here that the study of art reveals
its own substantial contribution to environmental(ist) discussions. The
conflicts of anthropocentric versus ecocentric ethics, the shortcomings
of existing moral systems, and the discursivity of science are aporias
of the ecocritical discourse that can be met with the imaginative power
of fiction. TKH VWXG\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ OLWHUDWXUH DQG WKH
physical environmenW (Glotfelty 1996: xviii) must deal with these
aporias and provide occasions of imaginative negotiations and proSRVHQHZSRVVLELOLWLHVRIPHDQLQJ and feeling (Attridge 2004b: 59).
Timothy Clark, in line with many other ecocritics, therefore points to
WKHIDFWWKDW>Q@RGLVWLQFWLYHPHWKRGGHILQHVHQYLURQPHQWDOFULWLFLVP
,WV IRUFH LV EHVW FKDUDFWHULVHG LQ WHUPV RI LWV YDULRXV FKDOOHQJHV
(2011: 4). +HLGHQWLILHVQROHVVWKDQWKLUWHHQHFRFULWLFDOTXDQGDULHVLQ
43
his Cambridge Introduction to Literature and the Environment. To

me, however, it seems pertinent that ecocriticism account for the role
of fictional literature in the context of environmental crises if it wants
to position itself more clearly and thus make a significant difference.
So far, ecocriticism has drawn on various models of environmental
philosophy and ecological science but, by now, it has also appropriated a great number of theoretical impulses from fields as diverse as
cybernetics, evolutionary theory, risk theory, feminist theory, anthropology, and environmental history (see Buell 2008: 10). In Chapter 4,
I will outline my own approach to dealing with these influences from
the point of view of literary theory and I will maintain that such an
approach must be independent of extraliterary theories, environmentalist ethics and science. Rather, if it is by means of literary theory that
ecocriticism might contribute to an understanding of the cultural and
environmental crisis it is concerned with, the question of an ecocritical
attitude to literature (as an experience) and literary theory (as something that may stand between this experience and the world, or support
it) is pivotal.
7KH VWUXJJOHV ZLWK OLWHUDU\ WKHRU\ HFRFULWLFLVPV DOOHJHG KRVWLOLW\
toward it, and the possibly consequential impossibility of ecocriticism (see Head 1998) will therefore be a crucial concern of this
VWXG\7KHWHQVLRQEHKLQGWKLVLPSRVVLELOLW\VWHPVIURPWKHFRQIOLFW
between a poststructuralist-postmodern praxis of interpretation and
theorisation and the ecocritical convictions of a reality beyond the text
that can be grasped through the text and whose being-read may even
lead to universalist (ecological) values.13 %XHOOVFODLPWKDW>D@QXmber of early ecocritics looked to the movement chiefly as a way of
UHVFXLQJ OLWHUDWXUH IURP WKH GLVWDQWDWLRQV >VLF@ RI UHDGHU IURP WH[W
DQGWH[WIURPZRUOG (2008: 6) will therefore be my starting point in
this section.
Of course one may solve, as Buell does, the whole issue beforeKDQG E\ PDLQWDLQLQJ WKDW HFRFULWLFLVP gathers itself around a comPLWPHQW WR HQYLURQPHQWDOLW\ IURP ZKDWHYHU FULWLFDO YDQWDJH SRLQW
(11) although WKH WHUP HQYLURQPHQWDOLW\ ZLOO QHHG WR EH GHILQHG
13
+XEHUW =DSI FRPHV WR D VLPLODU FRQFOXVLRQ DQG OLNHZLVH DUJXHV WKDW WKH OHJLWLmate critique of the self-sufficient abstractions of some theoretical approaches
VKRXOGQRWOHDGWRDQHJDWLRQRIWKHRU\DVVXFK=DSIE)RUDGLVFXVsion of the problematic idea to deduce ethics by reading realist texts, see Bergthaller 2006.
44
more explicitly. It is also possible to agree with &KHU\O *ORWIHOW\V

well-known definition of HFRFULWLFLVPDVWKHVWXG\RIWKHUHODWLRQVKLS
EHWZHHQ OLWHUDWXUH DQG WKH SK\VLFDO HQYLURQPHQW >@ WDN>LQJ@ DQ
earth-FHQWHUHGDSSURDFKWROLWHUDU\VWXGLHV (Glotfelty 1996: xix) and
DJDLQ earth-centered would surely need clarification. It is obvious
that these definitions take ecocriticism as the umbrella term for a still
undefined critical perspective, a vague programme that allows for
DQ\FRQFHLYDEOHVW\OHRIVFKRODUVKLSWREHFRPHDIRUPRIHFRFULWiFLVP LI LWV DSSOLHG WR certain kinds of literary works (Slovic 2008:
162). 7KLVLVZK\6FRWW6ORYLFFRQFOXGHVWKDW>L@I\RXUHORRNLQJIRU
ecocritical theory, look for it in our practice (162). This statement not
only discloses what more theoretically interested ecocritics have
called the fuzziness of ecocritical theory (Cohen 2004; Gifford 2008;
Parham 2008), it, despite its programmatic openness, already contradicts other ecocritical stances, which, for example, stress the fact that
HQYLURQPHQWDOLW\ >LV@ D SURSHUW\ RI any text (Buell 2008: 25, emphasis added). This idea opens up the ecocritical canon just as much
as it dilutes the already thin theoretical basis of ecocriticism. Ecocriticism seems to resist a clear theoretical classification, and it has instead
been described historically rather than theoretically. Therefore, one
way of conceiving ecocriticism diachronically has been to identify
ZDYHVRIHFRFULWLFDOVFKRODUVKLS
Although a first and second wave of ecocriticism can be identified
(e.g. Buell 2008: 17), it is important to keep in mLQGWKDW>Q@RVWDEOH
map on environmental criticism in liWHUDU\VWXGLHVFDQ>@EHGUDZQ,
as Buell maintains (1): as a content-centred approach, ecocritical theory is deeply heterogeneous and any discussion of theory will have to
face the question if concordant theoretisation is helpful at all. Many
ecocritics would indeed object to claims for a general theory, arguing
WKDW VLQFH HFRFULWLFLVP LV PRUH LVVXH-driven than method or paradigm-driven (11), it is not in need of one unified theory. Others,
KRZHYHUGRLQGHHGVHHWKHSUREOHPVRIDIX]]\WKHRUHWLFDOIRXQGation not because they would welcome a strict theoretical dogma
instead of an abundance of approaches, but because they see the dangers of an uncritical usage of terminology and concepts. The term
HQYLURQPHQWDOLW\ WKH XVH RI WKH FRQFHSW RI HWKLFV DQG HYHQ WKH
IRXQGDWLRQDOFRQFHSWRIHFRORJ\VWDQGDVH[DPSOHVRIWKHSUREOHmatic application of undefined terminology.
Depending on the point one aims to make, the classification of
ZDYHV PD\ GLIIHU $FFRUGLQJ WR %XHOO WKH ILUVW ZDYH RI HFRFULWLFV
45
VRXJKWWRUHVFXHOLWHUDWXUHDQGWKHOLWHUDU\H[SHULHQFHIURPZKDWZDV
seen as a disproportionate influence of theory (6). Buell describes how
WKH LGHD RI DQH[SHULHQWLDO LPPHUVLRQLQWROLWHUDWXUH KDd thus been
PDLQWDLQHGE\FODLPLQJWKHHIILFDF\RISUDFWLFHRYHUDJDLQVWWKHDuWKRULW\ RI WKHRU\ LQ WHUPV RI IRU LQVWDQFH DQ RXWGRRU practicum
[...] in situ (6-7). This belief in the didactical potency of text forms
such as nature writing has led critics of ecocriticism to question this
UHOLDQFH RQ SODLQ HFRORJLFDO UHDOLVP as Axel Goodbody points out
(1998: 13). Thus, and while nature writing and wilderness have
PDUNHGHFRFULWLFLVPVILUVW-wave appearance, Buell identifies a second
wave of ecocritical scholarship which met the challenges the first
ZDYHKDGLJQRUHG+DYLQJXQGHUVWRRGWKDWWKHZKRWKDWHQJDJHVLQ
ecocritical work is neither as individuated nor as extricated from social institutions as one might wish to think, HFRFULWLFLVP RI WKH VHcond wave grappled with poststructuralist theory as well as with a
JUHDW QXPEHU RI RWKHU WKHRUHWLFDO QRWLRQV DQG WKXV DEVRUEHG >WKH@
sociocentric perspective to a greater degree (Buell 2008: 8).
Remarkably, Catrin Gersdorf and Sylvia Mayer tell the story of
ecocriticism in slightly different terms. Although they likewise maintain a shift from ideas of wilderness and a focus on nature writing
towards a more global perspective of the relation between human
beings and their environment, they begin their historiography with
WilliDP5XHFNHUWVDQG-RVHSK0HHNHUVZRUNs (Gersdorf and Mayer
2006b: 17). Contrary to the suggestion that it was the second wave of
ecocriticism that broadened the scope of interdisciplinary methods,
WKH\ SRLQW WR WKH IDFW WKDW 5XHFNHUW ZKR FRLQHG WKH WHUP HFRFULWiFLVPDVHDUO\DVDQG0HHNHUZKRproposed literature as a potential cultural-ecological force, both used terminology and concepts
of ecological science (13-4). According to this view, ecocriticism has
from its very beginnings EHHQXQLTXHDPRQJVWFRQWHPSRUDU\OLWHUDU\
and cultural theories because of its close relationship with the science
of ecology, as Greg Garrard claims (2004: 5). Garrard tells the history of ecocriticism along the same lines as Gersdorf and Mayer, and
he likewise stresses that ecocriticism has grown to become a project of
cultural rather than literary studies:
Many early works of ecocriticism were characterised by an exclusive interest in
Romantic poetry, wilderness narrative and nature writing, but in the last few years
ASLE [the Association for the Study of Literature and the Environment] has
turned towards a more general cultural ecocriticism. (Garrard 2004: 4)
46
It is thus possible to claim that the early works of Leo Marx and
Raymond Williams, for example, display an ecocritical impetus since
Marx and Williams tried to account for human alienation from nature
by addressing the potential of literature to change consciousness
(Garrard 2007). But ecocriticism can also be seen as grounded on
VFLHQWLILFQRWLRQVRIOLWHUDU\'DUZLQLVP&DUUROO 2004), which works
with the idea of literature DVDUHVXOWRIWKHDGDSWHGPLQG%RWKKLVtoriographic versions, however, agree that ecocriticism has developed
LQWR D FXOWXUDO FULWLTXH WKDW GLVFXVVHV WKH PHDQLQJ RI QDWXUH ZLWKLQ
human culture and it often does so from a scientific or quasiscientific perspective. In doing so, ecocriticism tries to (re)unite the
life and natural sciences and literary studies, even if sometimes only
via the respective technical terms.14
On the one hand, scholars like Glen Love called for scientific literacy among scholars of the humanities but ecocriticism in its beginQLQJVDOVRWULHGWRSURYLGHIRUDUHVFXLQJRIOLWHUDWXUHDV%XHOOVD\V
E\ SUDLVLQJ UHDOLVP DQG QDWXUDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ LQVWHDG RI DEVWUDFW
VXSSRVHGO\WKHRUHWLFDOUHDGLQJV and representations. This disposition
towards VFLHQFHWRJHWKHUZLWKDGLVPLVVDORIFODVVLFDOOLWHUDU\VFKRlarship is a strange combination. IWLVSUREOHPDWLFWRWKHRUHWLFDOO\UHO\
on the sciences, on the one hand, and dismiss anything that could
stand between a pure reading experience and the self, on the other. In
other words: it is paradoxical that the hostility towards the abstraction
and theoretisation of literary scholarship is part of the ecocritical DNA
while at the same time the reliance on scientific theories, arguably no
less abstract or hypothetical, should be exempt from such critique. The
critical distance to literary theory is of course neither unmotivated nor
pointless, as I will argue below. But in embracing scientific instead of
literary theory, ecocriticism is hopelessly stuck between a rock and the
hard place of hard science.
Describing this conflict-ridden relationship of literary and scientific theory iQWHUPVRIDKLVWRU\RIZDYHV moreover, ignores another
existential problem. It has been noted repeatedly that such a history
excludes important branches such as ecofeminism because they do not
fit into the respective PRGHOVWHOHRORJ\IURPQDWXUH writing to ficWLRQ RU IURP UHDOLVP WR SRVWPRGHUQ WKHRU\ :KDW VHHPV PRUH
14
Thus, ecocriticism can be understood as an attempt to reconcile the divide that

C.P. Snow has claimed marks modern society in his lecWXUHV RQ WKH WZR FXOtures(Snow [1959, 1964]1998).
47
problematic to me, however, is that by deconstructing these teleologies, and by employing more and more theoretical approaches, ecocritics risk losing sight of an essential ecocritical concern. It is true
that WKHVXSSRVHGO\QDwYHUHOLDQFHRn a universalist idea of ethics and
WKH OLNHZLVH QDwYH IRFXV on mimetic texts such as nature writing
have by now been replaced by more sophisticated or simply more
abstract approaches: deconstruction and discourse analysis, poststructuralist thinking and postmodern theory in general. By describing this
shift as an improvement in theoretical sophistication, however, ecocriticism glosses over and quietly lets go of a difficulty earlier ecocriticism tried to (re)VROYHWKHGLIILFXOW\RIDFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHUHDO
The real is what early ecocritics thought had been ignored by sophisticated and self-recursive theory, and they hoped for the literary text to
provide experiences of the real hence the reliance on mimesis, repreVHQWDWLRQ DQG XQWKHRUHWLFDO UHDGLQJV In applying all kinds of contemporary theory to ecocriticism, scholars therefore ignore the fact
that ecocriticism had emerged as a counter-reaction to these very approaches. Rejecting these theoretical influences is not necessarily a
matter of navet; on the contrary, those ecocritics who did so were
convinced that a particular way of theorising was part of the crisis
ecocriticism needed to address.
This is not supposed to suggest that we should return to the realist
paradigm, however. That would only reify the missing distinction
between immediate experience and the mediated response of cultural
artefacts criticised above. Rather, I think that it is crucial to see that
WKHproblem of reality'LDPRQG has not been resolved yet and that
it cannot be addressed unless we come to terms with literary ways of
aestheticising this reality in fiction. As fiction provides ways of dealing with reality that are different from the reality of empiricism, these
ways have to be theorised. However, refuting the realist paradigm for
the sake of scientific notions (a merging of ecocriticism and quantum
theory, for instance see Oppermann 2003), is just as nave as a belief
in nature ZULWLQJVFDSDELOLW\RIWUXHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQEHFDXVHLWDVFULEHV
to the sciences the same universalistic qualities that early American
ecocriticism saw in mimesis and its alleged ethical and aesthetic potential. And suggesting postmodern theory as a means to sophisticate
ecocriticism conceals the fact that ecocriticism wanted to get beyond
this theoretical gesture because it understood this form of scholarship
to be a part of the problem rather than a possible solution. If this is
overlooked, ecocriticism risks losing sight of the concept of WKHUHDO
48
which, as I will show below, has been a crucial concept in theories of

the novel from the very beginning of literary studies. Contextualising
HFRFULWLFLVP ZLWK UHJDUGWR LWV GHDOLQJ ZLWKWKH SUREOHP RI WKHUHDO
and doing so with an explicit focus on the genuinely literary aspects
of fiction may therefore help to identify possible starting points for
investigation. Many ecocritics have identified the literary notion of
mimesis as important in this context, and mimesis and what Ickstadt
(1998) KDV FDOOHG WKH WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ RI WKH PLPHWLF ZLOO EH FUXFLDO
for this study WRR:KLOH/DZUHQFH&RXSHFODLPVWKDWJUHHQVWXGLHVLV
PXFKPRUHWKDQDUHYLYDORIPLPHVLVLWLVDQHZNLQGRISUDJPDWLFV
(2008b *HUVGRUIDQG0D\HU VXJJHVWD UH-evaluation of mimesis
DQGUHSUHVHQWDWLRQDVFRUHFDWHJRULHVRIOLWHUDU\DQGFXOWXUDOFULWLFLVP
(2006b: 11). I will discuss the complex and often contradictory concept of mimesis as an element of a discussion that thinks about literature with regard to its potentiDOWRQDUUDWLYLVHDQGQHJRWLDWHWKHUHDO
7RFRQFOXGHWKHILUVWZDYHLVVDLGWRKDYH resulted in an expansion of the literary canon, particularly by focussing nature writing,
while the theoretical notions behind this focus gave rise to numerous
critical objections, VRPHRIZKLFKDUHVWLOOXQUHVROYHGWRGD\7KHVHFRQGZDYHKRZHYHULVVDLGWRKDYHHQJDJHGZLWKVRPHRIWKHVHFUitiques by somewhat broadening the theoretical scope, but it is important to note that in doing so, it also complicated matters further in that
it created DQ HYHQ OHVV FOHDU-FXW ERUGHUOLQH EHWZHHQ VFLHQFH DQG
culture (Buell 2008: 19) and made heavy use of science in terms of
metaphors such as the text-as-organism.15 Unlike first-wave ecocritiFLVPV LQWHUHVW LQ ZLOGHUQHVV DQG pristine environments, and with regard to new objects of study such as popular science books, Hollywood films, and world literature16 in general, the critical tool-box was
complemented by ecofeminist ideas, urban studies, concepts from the
studies of ethnic literatures and more (Gifford 2008a: 15). An engagement with the issues raised by the respective theoretical notions
was overdue, but at the same time, ecocriticism arguably let go of any
15
16
Buell, however, reminds us not to forget that these metaphors have a history
RI WKHLU RZQ LQ FULWLFDO WKHRU\ GDWLQJ EDFN WKURXJK QHZ FULWLFDO IRUPDOLVP
to Romanticism, which in turn has much older roots in the mystical idea of the
world as text, the liber mundi(Buell 2008: 19).
, XVH WKH WHUP ZRUOG OLWHUDWXUH LQ D WZRIROG VHQVH Iirst, with regard to postcolonial perspectives and in contrast to the Euro- and Americentric bias of ecocriticism; and secondly, because it points to the questions of literary quality that I
think is relevant for ecocriticism as well (see Chapter 7.2 of this study).
49
DWWHPSWWRGLVFRYHUWKHUHDOEHKLQGWKHWH[W,KROGWKDWDIRFXV on the
aesthetics of fiction will suggest a way out of this.
Ecocriticism has to face its own theoretical challenges. With regard
to postcolonial literatures, it is especially the realisation of the fact that
OLWHUDWXUH-and-environment studies must develRS D VRFLDO HFRFULWiFLVP WKDW WDNHV XUEDQ DQG GHJUDGHG ODQGVFDSHV MXVW DV VHULRXVO\ DV
QDWXUDO ODQGVFDSHV, that is of utmost importance (Buell 2008: 22).
However, the attempt tR DFFRPPRGDWH WKH FODLPV RI HQYLURQPHQWDO
MXVWLFH(22) and address issues VXFKDVDQHQYLURQPHQWDOLVPRIWKH
SRRU 0DUWtQH]-Alier 2002) must not lead to a purely historicalmaterialist reading of texts. It is rather the specific aesthetic potential
of literature that LVFDSDEOHRIRYHUFRPLQJFDWHJRULHVVXFKDVSURWHVW
literaWXUHRUWKHLGHDRIILFWLRQDOWH[WVDVGRFXPHQWVRIHQYLURQPHQWDO
history. Graham Huggan and Helen Tiffin likewise maintain that, by
virtue of its aesthetic force, ZULWLQJLVDOZD\VOLNHO\WRWUDQVFHQGLWV
FDWHJRUL]DWLRQ DV SURWHVW OLWHUDWXUH but still, the\ DUJXH IRU WKH
need for a broadly materialist understanding of the relationship between people, animals and environment(2010: 12; 14). I will critically assess this assumption in Chapter 3.
Generally, it is essential to outline and negotiate the potential of
fictional writing in order to address what is widely thought of as the
imaginative crisis that underlies environmental crises. Refining his
notion of mimesis, Buell no longer claims that literary language
should be strictly referential. Rather, hHVWDWHVWKDW>O@DQJXDJHQHYHU
replicates extratextual landscapes, but it can be bent toward or away
IURPWKHP (2008: 33). Is that what he means when he comments on a
WH[WV HQYLURQPHQWDOLW\ (25)? If it is, the concept of textual environmentality may prove exceedingly fruitful when discussed in terms
of literary theory rather than from the perspective of environmentalism, science, and literary realism or ecomimesis. Notably, the idea of
language being bent towards the world points to the question of the
UHDODQG%XHOOVHHPVWHOOLQJO\LQVHFXUHabout whether to address this
question via the mimetic potential of fiction. Originally, Buell offered
the image of language bending towards or away from the world in
UHVSRQVH WR 3KLOOLSV FULWLTue of his concepts of representation and
literary realism. However, iWVYDJXHQHVVDQGLWVSRLQWLQJWRZDUGVWKH
UHDORIIHUDXVHIXOVWDUWLQJSRLQWIRUP\LQYHVWLJDWLRQ
50
2.2 Is There Some World in This Text?

Ecocriticism and Ecocritique
In order to XQGHUVWDQG WKH LQGHEWHGQHVV RI HFRFULWLFLVP WR WKH UHDO
the question of ecocritical interdisciplinarity is pivotal. Why, after all,
does ecocriticism make the effort of interfacing ethical and scientific
discourses? It is true that the environmental crisis and modern ecological awareness, which emerged in the 1970s, call for interdisciplinary approaches. However, I believe that there is also another reason
for it and this reason lies in the encounter with, and scholarly approaches to, reality. After a period of acute awareness in academia of
discursivity and social constructivism, the desire to reconnect with the
physical world and someWKLQJ WKDW antedates and outlasts social determinants 7XFNHU VHH DOVR &RKHQ seems
symptomatic.17 It responds to a period of scholarly neglect of questions of reality and an interest in fictional ways of accounting for it.
The belief in mimesis and generic realism is only one example; the
focus on science with its frequently positivist and materialist base is
another. Ecocritics have focussed on ethical ramifications and scientific factuality, but the most obvious avenue to the real fiction has
remained undertheorised. I believe that theorising fiction with regard
to questions of reality will result in a valuable contribution to the debates on this topic, and it will negotiate a fruitful middle ground as
ecocriticism, in Timothy MortonVZRUGVZDYHUVEHWZHHQWKHDSROLWLFDORUTXDVL-political ersatz religion of a call to care for the world,
and the New Left inclusion of race, gender, and environment in socialist thinking (2007: 122).
So far, I have commented on what I regard as a number of aporias
in ecocritical theory and practice. Namely, I have outlined the tension
between ecocentric and anthropocentric thinking, the problem of referring and adhering to science, and the problem of mimesis as a literary possibility for engaging with reality. I believe that these quandaries of contemporary ecocriticism can be attributed to the overarching
SUREOHP RI WKHRU\ LQ HFRFULWLFLVP whether understood as some17
In an ecocritical context, it is especially Zapf (1996; 2006b) who comes to a similar conclusion. Phillips (2003) traces the conflict from the history of the so-called
6FLHQFH:DUVEDFNWRWKHELWter disagreements about the nature of reality that
DURVHGXULQJWKH5HQDLVVDQFHVHHDOVRFor a thorough engagement with
RXUFRQWHPSRUDU\GHVLUHIRUHYLGHQFHVHH+DUUDVVHUHWDO
51
thing that may lead away from the world rather than offering ways to
better understand our textual engagement with nature or as an infinite
supply of fashionable theoretical models. Before I explain why I see
fiction as a means to encounter reality, and even as a potentially ethical way of doing so, some remarks on the dangers of this stance are
due. These dangers have been identified and discussed by other
scholars before, of course, and I therefore want to concentrate on the
general tendencies of what, following Morton, I call HFRFULWLTXHWKH
VHOI-FULWLFDOSHUVSHFWLYHRQRQHVRZQFULWLcism (Morton 2007: 13).18
%HVLGHV 0RUWRQV DSSURDFK WZR RWKHU DSSURDFKHV Wry to account
for the necessity of self critique, or have been refined in order to do
so, by either incorporating new aspects or by shifting the theoretical
IRFXV%XHOOVFRQFHSWRIWKHenvironmental text DQG=DSIVPRGHO
of literary ecology. I will discuss these approaches and point to their
problematic aspects in order to then outline how postcolonial and
hermeneutical perspectives can help dissolve some of these problems.
By eventually arguing for the importance of experiences of alterity, I
will outline and demonstrate my own approach of EnvironMentality as
a means of accounting for the conflicts and tensions discussed above.
The question of how to deal with scientific influences is answered
differently by the various branches of ecocriticism. However, all ecocritical thinking, either with regard to an awareness of the material
conditions of its own discursivity or in terms of a biologically inIRUPHGHPSLULFR-SKLORVRSKLFDOFULWLTXH*DUUDUG 2010a: 5), relies on
materialist notions and moral objectives, which govern the interpretive
foci.19 However, ecocriticism often still only circumvents the question
and conundrum of reality. Although ecocritical thought relies on science, a mysterious notion of immediacy, which is unknown to science,
18
19
Morton takes this term from Timothy Luke. However, LQ/XNHVEcocritique, the
FRQFHSWGHQRWHVIRUPVRIOHIWHFRORJLFDOFULWLFLVPVHH0RUWRQ/XNH
1997: xi-xiii).
In doing so, ecocriticism becomes a project that Derek Attridge would claim to be
LQVWUXPHQWDOLVW DVLWFRPSULVHVWKHWUHDWLQJRIDWH[WRURWKHUFXOWXUDODUWLIDFW
DV D PHDQV WR D SUHGHWHUPLQHG HQG E %\ FRQWUDVW $WWULGJH WULHV WR
FRQcHLYHRIOLWHUDWXUH>@DV>@GHILQHGE\LWVresistance to such thinking, but
he is well aware of the problems that such an approach ascribes to aesthetic autonomy (7). For a detailed account of the question, history and problems of
DHVWKHWLFautoQRP\DQGRUJDQLFIRUPKLJKO\UHOHYDQWIRUHFRFULWLFDODHVWKHWLFV
see Loesberg 2005. For a discussion RIWKHUROHRIVFLHQFHRULHQWDWLRQLQHFRFULticism, see Buell 1999: 703.
52
has been added to ecocriWLFLVP)URPZLOGHUQHVVZULWLQJWRDSRFDO\pWLFLVP0RUWRQSRLQWVRXW that HQYLURQPHQWDOGLVFRXUVHZDQWVWRJR

beyond intellectuality to a realm of instantly compelling facts. Empiricism is the name of the thinking that tries to be no-thinking (2007:
123). 'RHV0RUWRQVLURQLFGLVPLVVDORIno-thinking play off sentiment against objectivity? Or does it play off empiricism against
SURSHU HFRORJLFDO VFKRODUVKLS" ,Q DQ\ FDVH WKH UROH RI HPSLULFDO
science is far more ambivalent than it used to be in ecocritical discourse. And for good reasons. I have argued above that the role of
science in ecocritical approaches needs self-reflexive scrutiny. Ecocriticism might then realise, for instance, that a reliance on science
and the desire to grapple witK WKH UHDO GR QRW QHFHVVDULO\ GHSHQG
upon each other as far as literature is concerned.
So far, three ways of incorporating scientific argument and thinking into ecocriticism have been developed, and all of them, I believe,
must be understood with regard to their connection to concepts of WKH
UHDO 7KHVH GLIIHUHQW ZD\V DUH GHSOR\HG XQGHU GLVWLQFWO\ GLIIHUHQW
conditions and with distinctly different possible outcomes. FirstVFiHQFH PD\ YDOLGDWHWKHLGHD RI DQHFRORJLFDO FULVLV DV VFLHQWLILF ILQdings DXWKRULVH, for instance, concepts of anthropogenic climate
change and species extinction. As outlined above, a reliance on scientific data, however, poses some problems for literary scholars who
might not be trained in actually understanding the respective findings
on their own.
What is more, the sometimes epiphanic and often emotional style
within ecocritical work suggests that environmental concerns are felt
RQ D OD\ UDWKHU WKDQ RQ D VFLHQWLILF OHYHO WKDW LV WKH IHHOLQJ WKDW
VRPHWKLQJ LV ZURQJ FDnnot always be backed up by statistics and
scientific models. The rather un-ecological concern for narratives
about individual animals may serve as proof here. For instance, it is
unlikely that many ecocritics would be content to learn that species
survivaOLVSRVVLEOHEHFDXVHDQXPEHURI*OREDO6HHG9DXOWVlike the
one in Svalbard, Norway, have been built, although this might be a
scientifically sound solution to environmental degradation. The reason
for this lies (I stress it again) in the distinction between logos and
ethos, and the tone of much ecocritical work shows that ecocriticism is
ethical rather than scientific.20 Basically, such a concern for the world
20
This tone is also characteristic of nature writing and can be found, for example, in
%LOO 0F.LEEHQV The End of Nature. Although McKibben aims at presenting
53
LV D WKRURXJKO\ FXOWXUDO HQWHUSULVH 7KH GHVLUH WR OLYH LQ KDUPRQ\
with nature (whatever that may mean exactly), or to live sustainably
(again, the meaning of this would have to be clarified: see Bergthaller
2007) exist beyond and despite scientific notions.
This is why Garrard, following John Passmore, maintains the cultural perspective of ecolRJLFDO SUREOHPV DV RSSRVHG WR SUREOHPV LQ
HFRORJ\7RGHVFULEHVRPHWKLQJDVDQHFRORJLFDOSUREOHPLVWRPDNH
a normative claim about how we wish things to be, and while this
arises out of the claims of ecological scientists, it is not defined by
WKHP 2004: 5). Accordingly, the environmental crisis that ecocriticism speaks of may be conceived as an ecological problem rather than
a problem in ecology (although both concepts are surely interrelated),
and this crisis can therefore indeed be described, as Lawrence Buell
has done, as first and foremost DFULVLVRIWKHLPDJLQDWLRQ (1995: 2).
Such a crisis cannot be measured by science. But what does this mean
IRUWKHDWWHPSWWRFRPHWRWHUPVZLWKWKHUHDO"
Although approaches that differentiate between scientific and cultural ecology exist, scientifically oriented ways of scholarship the
second way of dealing with science in ecocriticism are also of little
help. Scholars who refer to literature in the context of an evolutionary,
cultural ecology (Finke 2006; Zapf 2001) or, more generally, in the
VHQVH RI DQ HFRORJ\ RI PLQG %DWHVRQ 1972) do not in fact discuss
ecology within literature, but literature as ecology. At least for a study
that understands the texts under scrutiny as aesthetic discourses and
addresses them as literature, an integration of works of art into the
framework of evolutionary notions would necessarily be reductive.
The objective of literary studies, as Wolfgang Iser points out, is not to
>PDNH@ SUHGLFtions [but] is an attempt at mapping (2007: 5). Iser
maintains that compared to scientific WKHRU\ WKHRU\ LQ WKH KXPDQLWLHV LV DOPRVW WKH UHYHUVH $UW DQG OLWHUDWXUH FDQEH DVVHVVHG EXW
not predicted, and one cannot even anticipate the multiple relationships they contain. Prediction aims ultimately at mastering something,
whereas mapping VWULYHVWRGLVFHUQVRPHWKLQJ7KXVKHSRLQts to
the fact that the idea behind science is considerably different from the
scientific fact, he cannot define the nature he deems to be lost scientifically.
Instead, he falls back on PRUDO DQG DHVWKHWLF SDUDPHWHUV ZH feel the need for
SULVWLQHSODFHV>@WKH\matter WRXVDQG2XUsadness [about the end of nature]
is almost an aesthetic response appropriate because have we marred a great,
mad, profligate work of art, taken a hammer to the most perfectly proportioned of
VFXOSWXUHV0F.LEEHQHPSKDVHV added).
54
idea behind the humanities, and ecocriticism, with its critical stance
WRZDUGVPDVWHU\would do well to mind this difference. In this study,
I will therefore try to map instances where literature allows for a
negotiation of questions of the natural world and our ethical commitment to it, I am not interested in the incorporation of cultural practices
into a scientific framework.
This strict focus on the aesthetic properties of texts underlines how
necessary it is to keep ethical and scientific claims apart, and to disWLQJXLVKWKHLUDFFHVVWRUHDOLW\IURPILFWLRQDOZD\VRIGHDOLQJZLWKWKH
UHDO 1DWXUDOO\ WKHVH DVSHFWV DUH interrelated but, for the sake of
analysis, it is advisable to keep them separate in order to see, for example, KRZQDWXUHLVVHWXSDVDWUDQVFHQGHQWDOXQLILHGLQGHSHQGHQW
category (Morton 2009: 13).
In The Chicago Gangster Theory of Life, Andrew Ross criticises
forms of environmental thinking and activism that unconsciously or
deliberately neglect the social dimensions of hybridised scientificnormative discourses. Ross warns that such forms of activism, if they
uncritically hail natural laws as moral guidelines, deny the linguistic
and discursive means of shaping our social habitat. Thus, they run the
risk of unwillingly becoming the mouthpiece for new waves of radicalisms namely radical economism as embodied, for instance, by
new social Darwinistic ideas. While many happily welcome the return
RIQDWXUHWRWKHDJHQGDDVDFRXQWHUEODVWWRWKHGHVWUXFWLYHDUURJDQFH
RI KXPDQLVP, those who take into account the social dimension of
SROLF\PDNLQJDQGHWKLFDOGHEDWHPD\ZHOOIHDUWKDWWKHDXWKRULW\RI
QDWXUH >@ ZLOO EHFRPH D GHVSRWLF YHKLFOH IRU FXUWDLOLQJ ULJKWV DQG
liberties (Ross 1994: 13). As it were, this would be a model case of
the naturalistic fallacy as discussed in Chapter 2.1, and it hints at the
possible dangers of an uncritical reliance on ecocentrism in general.
Does this mean that social constructivism should be the name of
the game after all? I do not think that it will solve the problem of WKH
UHDO but I do think that it is necessary to accept its relevance as an
aspect of our conceptions of nature. By the same token, nature can be
seen as something RWKHUthat is encountered within a particular hermeneutic horizon in the endeavour to understand the world. Such a
cautious, hermeneutic position may help to avert green-washing
mechanisms and a general environmental rhetoric of consumerism, 21
21
It is especially the indebtedness of Romantic thinking to the emerging consumerist society that Timothy Morton dis cusses in his Ecology without Nature. He
55
and foreclose both a scientific and moral instrumentalisation of literature. In his critique, Ross shows that we actually cannot distinguish
neatly between deep and social branches of ecological thinking. I
DJUHHWKDWZKHQLGHDVWKDWGUDZXSRQWKHDXWKRULW\RIQDWXUHFDQEH
VDLG WR QHDUO\ DOZD\V KDYH WKHLr origin in ideas about society, the
unquestioned authority of ecology is very doubtful (Ross 1994: 15).
:KHWKHU RQH EHOLHYHV LQ WKH H[LVWHQFH RI ODZV RI QDWXUH 5RVV
writes,
or whether one believes WKDW ODZV >@ UHDOO\ RQO\ H[LVW in human society, I
would argue: (a) that both of these views of nature are full of social theory, and
(b) that in so subordinating ourselves we risk forfeiting any independent or alternative response to perhaps the most consequential debates of our times [i.e.
the ecological crisis]. (Ross 1994: 261)
This leads back to the aporias of anthropocentric and ecocentric thinkLQJ , RXWOLQHG DERYH DQG VXJJHVWV DFFHSWLQJ QDWXUHV RWKHUQHVV DV D
hermeneutic challenge instead.
Similarly, when Dana Phillips (1999; 2003) problematises the
WUXWKRIHFRORJ\ZLWKUHJDUGWRan ecocritical appraisal of science in
lieu of literary theory, I believe he criticises scholars who claim to be
VSHDNLQJQRWRQEHKDOIRIWUDGLWLRQ>OLWHUDU\WUDGLWLRQDQGLQWKLVFRntext, the neoconservative rhetoric in the US that Phillips sees parallels
to], of which they are often critical, but on behalf of nature (1999:
578). Phillips originally focuses on what he sees as reactionary tendencies within a political context. However, when he identifies a
prevailing dislike of theory among ecocritics [as an] expression of
impatience not only with theory but with any intellectual activity entailing traffic in abstractions, which is to say any intellectual activity
ZLWKVRPHELWHDQGIRUFHthis criticism seems to be aimed at a
devotion to a questionable concept of science at the expense of schol-
maintains a strong bearing of economic thinking in modern environmental

thought, which he tries to address though KLV LGHD RI GDUN HFRORJ\ $OWKRXJK
many of his arguments are compelling, I feel his concept of dark ecology owes
more to postmodern theory chic than he is willing to concede. While he argues
WKDW >G@DUN HFRORJ\ LV EDVHG RQ WKH QHJDWLYH GHVLUH UDWKHU WKDQ SRVLWLYH IXOILOlment,ZKLFKVRXQGVOLNHDZD\RIDFFHSWLQJWKHJHQXLQHRWKHUQHVVRIQDWXUHKLV
LURQLFVXJJHVWLRQRXWZLWKWKHEODFNFORWKHVH\HOLQHUDQGZKLWHPDNHXSRQZLWK
WKHVSDQJO\ PXVLFGDUNHFRORJ\UHYHDOVWKLVTXLWHWHOOLQJO\0RUWRQ
188).
56
arly precision. It is therefore not without sardonic amusement when he

maintains that
ecocritics have tended to ignore the recent history of ecology, and to assume that
its representation of nature has been more successful than in truth it has. They
often appeal to the scientific authority of ecology, an authority which they then
exploit rhetorically as a moral and philosophical sanction for their own discourse.
(580)
This impasse will be avoided if ecocriticism deals with the environment in ways that do not rely on other discourses of nature in the first
place WKLVLVZK\0RUWRQDUJXHVIRUDQHFRORJ\ZLWKRXWQDWXUHWKDW
LV DV &ODUN SXWV LW D ZD\ RI WKLQNLQJ HFRORJLFDOO\ ZLWKRXW QDWXUH
[...] as a touchstone of intellectual certainty and moral purity or guidance (Clark 2011: 70).
As argued above, ecology has long since moved beyond the ecoFULWLFVPRVWGHDULGHDVRIVWDELOLW\DQGKDUPRQ\, for example, towards
PRGHOVRISDWFKHVFRQWLQXDOO\FKDQging and far from stable a deYHORSPHQW WKDW 3KLOOLSV LGHQWLILHV DV EHLQJ PRUH OLNH SRVWVWUXFWXUDlism and less like the sort of value-rich, restorative, and recuperative
GLVFRXUVH HFRFULWLFV KDYH LPDJLQHG LW WR EH (Phillips 1999: 580). If
ecocriticism hDV EHFRPH DV 0RUWRQFODLPV WRR HQPHVKHGLQ LGHRlogy that churns out stereotypical ideas of nature to be of any use,
what is needed is an approach that is bRWK FULWLFDO DQG VHOI-critical
(Morton 2007: 13). 0RUWRQVXJJHVWVWKHFRQFHSWRIHFRFULWLTXHas a
QHFHVVDU\VXSSOHPHQWIRURXUGHDOLQJZLWKQDWXUHDQGmost notably,
he likewise maintains the importance of aesthetic form for this enterprise.
In a comparably critical comment on the conditions that made ecocriticism possible as an academic field of inquiry, Robert P. Marzec
reminds us that, just like all other means of linguistic representation,
environmental representation cannot claim a privileged lucidity, otherwise its
struggle for politicization may end up supporting the unchecked movement of
capital as we saw with the turning of underrepresented struggles into marketable
identity politics with the institutionalization of multiculturalism. (Marzec 2009:
420)
Instead of asking about thHUROHRIVFLHQce in our lives (Love 2003:

39), an ecocritical project that understands the reliance on science as a
PHDQVRIFRPLQJWRWHUPVZLWKUHDOLW\DQGWUXWKPD\ comprehend
the negotiations of truth in fiction differently. For my part, I follow
57
Frederick CrewV DUJXPHQW of ZK\ VFLHQFH ORRPV ZLWKLQ OLWHUDU\

theory: iW LV QRW QHFHVVDU\ WKDW FULWLFV VKRXOG LQGLVFULPLQDWHO\ DSSO\
recent scientific discoveries to literary interpretation but that they
VKRXOG FXOWLYDWH WKH VFLHQWLVWV DOHUWQHVV DJDLQVW GRFWRUHG HYidence,
circular reasoning, and wilful indifference to counterexample (quoted
in Love 2003: 47). This third form of science orientation, which I will
elaborate on in Chapter 4, seems best capable for approaching the
challenge of discovering and negotiatinJ WKH UHDO LQ D SRVWFRORQLDO
and ecocritical context.
In his discussion of the social aspects of the discourses on the natural, Ross argues for a focus on the discursive potentials of dealing
with environmental crises and maintains that
it may be better to think of it as an emergencyIURPZKLFKQHZLGHDVHPHUJHDV
a basis for social change, rather than a crisis IRU ZKLFK RQH ILQGV D VROXWLRQ
which is more likely to be expediently exploited in the name of the status quo.
(Ross 1994: 262; emphasis added)
In viewing nature in terms of alterity, and by focussing on fictional

means of staging its experience, I believe that the idea of such an
HPHUJHQF\ EHFRPHV FRPSUHKHQVLEOH 7KH OLWHUDU\ SRWHQWLDO WKDW ,
will discuss has been describHGE\'HUHN$WWULGJHDVWKHsingularity
of literaWXUH and with this concept in mind, I will outline fictional
ways of dealing with reality in terms of a negotiation of otherness
(Attridge 2004b: 22-31; see also Loesberg 2005).
In a chapter RQ 7UXWK Convention, Realism, James Wood suggests that literature can indeed foster negotiations of reality, but he
goes on to say that such literary encounters with the real are not necessarily congruent with empirical reality, nor do they require literary
realism. Therefore, he wryly SURSRVHV WKDW ZH UHSODFH WKH DOZD\V
SUREOHPDWLF ZRUG UHDOLVP ZLWK WKH PXFK PRUH SUREOHPatic word
WUXWK (Wood 2009: 180). To let go of facts and to talk about a cerWDLQWUXWKWKDWOLWHUDWXUHLVDEOHWRFRQYH\VHHPVOLNHDJRRGZD\RI
talking about the potential of literary alterity. Encountering alterity,
Attridge maintains, must include a distinction between WUXWK DQG
IDFWV DQG ZKLOH OLWHUDWXUH FDQQRW PDNH GHfinite, factual statements
about reality, it can comment on truth, as I will show.
In Chapters 3 and 4, I explain in detail the connection between a
KHUPHQHXWLFDSSURDFKWROLWHUDWXUHDQGWKHTXHVWLRQRIQDWXUHVRWKHrness, and I will situate these ideas in a postcolonial context. With regard to the claim that literature can and should be understood
58
scientifically, the distinction between truth and fact impedes possible

theoretical fusions and underlines anew the gap between textuality and
materiality and it does so for a very good reason since the normative
or heuristic claim of ecological problems and scholarly scrutiny cannot lead to the same results as a scientific approach to problems in
ecology.
I will show in the course of my argument that the task of redefining
WKHFULVLVDVDQHPHUJHQF\can be accomplished best by reading literature because the potential of literature lies exactly in its imaginative
FUHDWLRQ RI SRVVLEOH ZRUOGV DQG >L@WV DHVWKHWLFLVLQJ WUDQVJUHVVLRQ RI
immediate referentiality (Zapf 2001: 88). Before I discuss my own
hermeneutic approach to EnvironMentality in the following chapters, I
ZDQW WR FRPPHQW LQ PRUH GHWDLO RQ %XHOOV QRWLRQ RI DQ HQYLURnPHQWDOWH[WDQG+XEHUW=DSIVPRGHORIFXOWXUDOHFRORJ\ to which I
am indebted but from which I diverge in a number of ways. Obviously, the conception of literature as cultural ecology is a case of a
quasi-VFLHQWLILF WKHRULVDWLRQ RI OLWHUDWXUH DQG LW LV WUXH WKDW WKH DQDORJ\EHWZHHQHFRORJ\DQGWKHVRFLDOIXQFWLRQRI literature may seem
rather forced on examination (Clark 2011: 154).22 However, I turn to
=DSIVPRGHOIRURWKHUUHDVRQVWKDQLWVHFRORJical analogies. It is necHVVDU\WRXQGHUVWDQG=DSIVFODLPWKDWOLWHUDWXUH
[b]ecomes an ecological force-field within culture, a subversive yet regenerative
semiotic energy which, though emerging from and responding to a given sociohistorical situation, still gains relative independence as it unfolds the counterdiscursive potential of the imagination in the symbolic act of reconnecting abstract cultural realities to concrete life processes. (Zapf 2011: 88)
Actually, this focus on the imaginative potential of (environmental?)

literature could (and should) be the primary focus of ecocritical analyses. By the same token, coQFHSWVVXFKDV%XHOOVenvironmental text
can be assessed as analytical frameworks with which to discuss
22
It is often overlooked that Zapf does not uncritically believe in literary ecology as
D VFLHQWLILF OLWHUDU\ WKHRU\. Rather he differentiates between various directions
HFRFULWLFDOLQWHUHVWVPLJKWWDNH$%DWHVRQLDQHFRORJ\RIPLQGLVVXFKDQinterest EXW KH OLNHZLVH GLVFXVVHV WKH aesthetic and imaginative dimension of literatureDQGWKHIXQFWLRQ>RI@WKH fictional mode of literary communication, which
is characterized not by direct imitation but by the defamiliarization and symbolic
transfRUPDWLRQ RI UHDOLW\ DQG QDWXUH =DSI WKXVGLUHFWO\ OLQNV DVSHFWV RI OLWHrary anthropology with formalist vocabulary, and he addresses the impasse
of mimesis too. See Zapf (2006b: 53; emphasis orig.).
59
fictional texts and their potential for DVXFFHVVIXOUHWKLQNLQJRIPDQV

being-in-the-world by fostering an understanding of oXUEHLQJLQWKH
world of words (Attridge 2004b: 130).
2.3 Environmental Texts and Literary Ecology

:KDW FDQ EH GRQH DERXW WKH SUREOHP RI UHDOLW\ DQG ZKHUH GRHV
imaginative literature enter this debate? How do we bridge the gap
between anthropocentric and ecocentric thinking, and get away from
scientific logos as an index of ethos? What, then, can literature and
literary theory offer, seemingly torn between the claim that theory
leads away from the world while language should be bent towards it,
and thH FDOO IRUHYROXWLRQDU\ FULWLFLVP WKDW DUJXDEO\ JRHV ZHOO Eeyond the realm of the plausible in its declarations about what literature
can and ought to do (Phillips 2003: 7)?
Despite notable exceptions and the problematic aspects of its definition, LawUHQFH %XHOOV QRWLRQ RI DQ HQYLURQPHQWDOO\ RULHQWHG
ZRUNRUDQHQYLURQPHQWDOWH[WVWLOOODUJHO\GHILQHVmany notions of
green literature. But it is not only because of its relevance that this
concept has to be discussed here. Moreover, the idea of the environmental text seems to suggest an answer to the problems of reality. It
does so by stressing WKHUHIHUHQWLDOpotential of fiction, a potential to
represent an ecocentric reality and make it accessible to readers. Although Buell could not solve the tension between anthropocentric and
ecocentric thinking, and even though his reliance on the mimetic potential of literature has been sharply criticised, I believe that the tenets
of his approach can prove helpful in the context of my work. The
same can be said about HXEHUW =DSIV LGHD RI literature as cultural
HFRORJ\ ZKLFK connects notions of literary studies and scientific
posits, if only through analogy. TKLV PDNHV =DSIV DSSURDFK DQ
unlikely candidate for a study concerned with ecocritique and a criticism of a scientifically informed ecocriticism. However, since Zapf
focuses on the functions of literature to a remarkable degree, his
PRGHO KHOSIXOO\ VXSSOHPHQWV P\ SRLQW ,W LV HVSHFLDOO\ =DSIV Dpproach to the ethical function of fiction that I will incorporate into my
own approach of EnvironMentality.
%XHOOVLQLWLDOFRQFHSWRIDQHQYLURQPHQWDOWH[Windeed does invite
criticism. He describes the environmental text as a work of art in
ZKLFKILUVWO\>W@KHQRQKXPDQHQYLURQPHQWLVSUHVHQWQRWPHUHO\Ds a
60
framing device but as a presence that begins to suggest that human

history is implicated in natural history (Buell 1995: 7). Secondly, he
GHPDQGVWKDWDQHQYLURQPHQWDOWH[WVKRZWKDWKXPDQLQWHUHVWLVQRW
understood to be the only legitimate interest DQG WKDW KXPDQ DcFRXQWDELOLW\LVSDUWRIWKHWH[WVHWKLFDORULHQWDtion (7). Moreover, the
HQYLURQPHQWDOWH[WVKRXOGSURYLGHXVZLWK>V@RPHVHQVHRIWKHHQYLUonment as a process rather than as a constant or a given (7). Without
a doubt, Buell seeks to define forms of ecocentric writing, and although it is possible to describe fictional works that meet these criteria, it remains unclear how exactly these notions can be taken as
narrative constituents, and whether the novel in particular is not, in
fact, opposed to such ecocentric designs. Dominic Head, for example,
DVVHUWVWKDWQDUUDWLYHILFWLRQZRXOGVHHPWREHSHFXOLDUO\UHVLVWDQWWR
WKH RSHUDWLRQ RI HFRFULWLFLVP LQ WHUPV RI D VWXG\ RI HQYLURQPHQWDO
WH[WV (Head 19987KHQRYHOKHZULWHVLVDtriumph of industrialized society,DQGLWLVWRRPXFKDSURGXFWRILWVVRFLDOPRPHQWWR
ruminate usefully on the route to the post-industrial world (32).
Buell, however, insists on the value of his concept and has elaborated
on it in subsequent publications. In The Future of Environmental
CriticismKHVXJJHVWVWKDWZHRXJKWWRWKLQNLQFOXVLYHO\RIHQYLURnPHQWDOLW\DVDSURSHUW\RIDQ\WH[W (Buell 2008: 25) but he does not
provide a specific narratological account oU D GHILQLWLRQ RI HQYLURnPHQWDOLW\
Buell suggests the mode of realism as a privileged locus of environmentality and argues that ecocriticism should engage with the mimetic potential of imaginative literature since in realist writing, the
fatal marginaOLVDWLRQRIOLWHUDWXUHVUHIHUHQWLDOIXQFWLRQLVUHIXWHG7KLV
idea obviously provoked disagreement. And although he does not
insist on the benefit of nature writing or classical realism any more, he
GRHVLQVLVWWKDWODQJXDJH>@FDQEHEHQWWRZDUGRUDZD\IURPWKH
landscape, and thus the reality, it seeks to represent (33). While Buell
hopes to bring nature back onto the agenda of interpretive practice by
emphasising DWH[WVDELOLW\WRLQYRNHWKHZRUOGDVUHDOLVWLFDOO\DVSRssible, Phillips rightly coQWUDGLFWV KLP H[SODLQLQJ WKDW >W@R VXJJHVW
that the nature depicted in a literary text [...] can be something substantial, is at odds with the fact that ideology, fantasy, and allegory are
basic to literature (Phillips 2003: 161). This does not dissolve completely the SRWHQWLDORI%XHOOVEHQWODQJXDJH idea, but I agree with
Phillips that the features that Buell dismisses as being EHQW DZD\
IURPWKHZRUOGDUHSLYRWDOHOHPHQWVRIILFWLRQLQJHQHUDO0RUHRYHU,
61
think that they are also crucial for the interpretation of literary works
EHWKHVHZRUNVHQYLURQPHQWDORUQRW
7KXVRQHRIWKHNH\SUREOHPVZLWK%XHOOVQRWLRQRIDQHQYLURnmeQWDOWH[WLVWKHYHU\LGHDRIbeing bent away from the world: to
dismiss the narrative potential and aesthetic dimension of fiction in the
FRQWH[WRIKXPDQLW\Vcrisis of imagination (as Buell himself puts it)
risks overlooking the fact that mimetic aspects of literature work
PDLQO\ DV DQ DXWKHQWLFDWLQJ device, as Morton points out (2007:
33).23 Believing in such an authenticity reinforces predetermined, materialist notions of nature, and it forecloses irritation and interpretive
negotiation. Ultimately, it keeps up the illusion of having a grasp on
QDWXUH DQG JORVVHV RYHU WKH SUREOHP WKDW QDWXUH DOZD\V VOLSV RXt of
reach in the very act of grasping it (Morton 2007: 19).
In his latest publication, Buell accordingly puts his ideas into perVSHFWLYH DQG H[SODLQV , SUHIHU >$QJXV@ )OHWFKHUV PRGHO >RI WKH
environment-poem] to my own more circumscribed definition of the
HQYLURQPHQWDO WH[W (Buell 2008: 71; see also Fletcher 2004, esp.
122-8). This is interesting because Buell acknowledges in hindsight
WKDWLWZRXOGKDYHEHHQQHFHVVDU\WRWKLQNDERXWWKHUHFLSURFLW\Eetween text and environment: as rhetoric, as performance, and as
world-making (Buell 2008: 45; see also Gifford 2008: 16). Notably,
E\UHIHUULQJWR)OHWFKHUVPRGHO%XHOOVKLIWVKLVHPSKDVLVWRZDUGVDQ
idea of aesthetic experience that is not bound to mimetic representation.
%\VHFRQGLQJ)OHWFKHUV idea that poetry, instead of employing the
HQYLURQPHQW DV SDUW RI LWV WKHPH DQG PHDQLQJ DFWXDOO\ JHWV WKH
UHDGHUWRHQWHULQWRWKLVSRHPDVLILWZHUHWKHUHDGHUVHQYLURQPHnt of
living (Fletcher 2004: 122), Buell accounts for the special potential
of aesthetic and imaginative experiences that literature holds. I think
this idea is remarkable. After all, the conviction that a poem (or a fictional text, for that matter) can be seen as an organic thing because it
LV DQ H[SHULHQFH UDWKHU WKDQ DQ\ PHUH VWDWHPHQW DERXW H[SHULHQFH
comes directly from New-Critical and Formalist discourses (Brooks
1947: 194).24 As argued above, these literary-theoretical schools, or
the focus on formalist literary theory in general, seem to be diametriFDOO\ RSSRVHG WR HFRFULWLFLVPV WKHRUHWLFDO VFRSH $IWHU DOO LW ZDV
23
24
5RODQG%DUWKHVUHDOLW\HIIHFWFRPHVWRPLQd here too.

The history of the concept of organic form is much longer, however. See Loesberg 2005, esp. Chapter 1; Geiger 2005 and Chapter 4 of this study.
62
Lawrence BXHOO ZKR SXW IRUZDUG WKH LGHD RI disciplined extrospecWLRQ and the deliberate connection of language and world
DJDLQVW WKH YHU\ WHQGHQFLHV WRZDUGV IRUPDOLVP LQ literary theory,
as Clark remarks (2011: 47). How do these notions go together, then?
'DQD3KLOOLSVQRWLFHVWKHVHSDUDOOHOVWRRDQGKHVXJJHVWVWKDWHFocriticism needs to be given a strong dose of formalism (2003: 168).
Phillips also looks for ways in which ecocriticism can deal with the
WUXWKRILWVPDWHULDODOWKRXJKKHYHKHPHQWO\REMHFWVto the dogmatic
belief in mimesis and representation. To understand the significance
of literature as an aesthetic discourse read: to account for its specific
form has increasingly come to the fore of ecocriticism. However, the
work of Phillips and others has shown that aesthetic renderings of
the world have to be read cautiously. This is even more the case in the
context of postcolonialism. I agree with Attridge ZKRVWDWHVWKDWWKH
QRWLRQ RI IRUP KDV a lengthy and troubled history, and who conFOXGHVWKDWDWWKHEHJLQQLQJRIWKHWZHQW\-first century it is not possible to make a straightforward appeal to such a notion (2004b: 11).
ArJXLQJIRUDIRFXVRQform without formalism he therefore
maintains that
[w]hat is needed [...] is a mode of attention to the specificity and singularity of literary writing as it manifests itself through the deployment of form [...] that at the
same time fully acknowledges the problematic status of all claims to universality,
self-presence, and historical transcendence. (13)
Contemporary ecocriticism, especially if it is informed by postcolonial

criticism, is aware of the problematic nature of these claims. But the
problematic status of such a focus notwithstanding, Buell and other
ecocritics seem to feel the need to account for the formal aspects of
literary discourses in general and the novelistic form in particular.
When Buell thus SURFODLPV WKDW WKH UHFLSURFLW\ between text and
HQYLURQPHQWVKRXOGEHVFUXWLQLVHGWRa greater extent in the future, he
points to the specific functions of fictional discourse (2008: 45). I will
show how these functions can be linked directly to aspects of literary
form.
$W WKLV SRLQW UHIHUULQJ WR +XEHUW =DSIV FRQFHSW RI OLWHUDWXUH DV
FXOWXUDOHFRORJ\is surely suggestive because Zapf explicitly focuses
on the function of fictional literature. In particular, he considers its
ever-changing forms and, thus, the reciprocity between text and envirRQPHQW7KDWLVWRVD\=DSIVPRGHOKHOSVXVWREHWWHUXQGHUVWDQGWKH
specific literary potential of fiction as it describes literature as a force
63
that may eventually help to address the environmental crisis. This

crisis is always, as argued above, first and foremost a crisis of the
imagination in the first place. Following Ross, it could be said that to
frame WKLVFULVLVDVDQHPHUJHQF\GHSHQGVRQWKHLPDJLQDWLYHPHDQV
RIILFWLRQ=DSIWKHUHIRUHFDOOVOLWHUDWXUHDIRUFH-field within culture,
as shown above (2001: 88). It has been mentioned already that the
metaphorical or analogising reference to ecology is problematic, and
3KLOOLSVFULWLTXHWKDWWKHVLPLODULW\EHWZHHQRUJDQLFOLWHUDU\IRUPV
>@ DQG RUJDQLVPV DQG HFRV\VWHPV LV HQWLUHO\ QHJOLJLEOH LV VXUHO\
DSSOLFDEOH WR =DSIV ZRUN WRR (Phillips 2003: 144). While Zapf primarily grounds his model of OLWHUDU\ HFRORJ\ RQ FXOWXUDOanthropological writings and ideas of cultural ecology, his concepts
RZHPRUHWR-UJHQ/LQNVLQWHUGLVFRXUVHDQDO\VLVWKDQWRHFRORJLFDO
science (see Zapf 2008b: 25-7).
For me=DSIVWKHRUHWLFDOSHUVSHFWLYHLVQRWHZRUWK\Eecause of the
implications of his idea that literary texts are a part RI D FXOWXUDOHFRORJLFDO V\VWHP UDWKHU WKDQ GLVFXUVLYH DUWHIDFWV that engage with
an extra-textual, ecological crisis). Zapf argues that language funcWLRQVDVDPLVVLQJOLQN that constitutes the interface between world
and mind (2008b: 27). He thus focuses on the literary functions of
WH[WVLQDZD\YHU\VLPLODUWR,VHUVFunktionsgeschichte (to which he
refers repeatedly), and he describes fiction as one of the most effective
creative discourses when it comes to dealing with the traumata and
crises of human alienation from the world. To that effect,
[l]iterature in this view is a kind of cultural textuality that has evolved in coevolution as well as in tension with the process of civilisatory modernisation, and
that effectively has the fundamental significance of the nature-culture-relationship
inscribed as its generative principle. (Zapf 2008b: 32, my translation)
$FFRUGLQJ WR KLV DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW OLWHUDWXUH DFWV OLNH DQ HFRORJLFDO
force within WKH ODUJHU FXOWXUDO V\VWHP (Zapf 2001: 85, emphasis
orig.), Zapf criticises Buell and other scholars concerned with the
environment for reducing literary texts to sites where ecological
NQRZOHGJHFRPHVWREHDSSOLHG. As soon as literary critics start tending toward reading HFRORJLFDO FRUUHFWQHVV DORQH (see Zapf 2008b:
17), WKHVSHFLILFSRWHQWLDODQGFXOWXUDOIXQFWLRQVRIWH[WVDUHREVFXUHG
rather than illuminated (2001: 86). In opposition to this, he stresses
WKH GHSUDJPDWLVLQJ SRVVLELOLWLHV RI OLWHUDU\ WH[WV DV G\QDPLF SDrticipants in a constantly self-transforming historical environment
(Kroeber quoted in Zapf 2001: 91).
64
This leads him to a model of how these transformations are initiDWHG)LUVWO\KHVWDWHVWKDWOLWHUDU\WH[WVSUHVHQWDQGFULWLFLVHGHILFLWV

contradictions and deformities in prevailing political, economic, ideoORJLFDODQGXWLOLWDULDQV\VWHPVRIFLYLOLVDWRU\SRZHU, and he calls this
funFWLRQWKHFXOWXUDO-FULWLFDOPHWDGLVFRXUVH (93):
These systems are depicted as often traumatising forms of human self-alienation,
which, in their one-sided hierarchical oppositions between culture and nature,
mind and body, power and love, lead to death-in-life situations of paralysed vitality and psychological imprisonment. (Zapf 2001: 93)
6HFRQGO\OLWHUDWXUHLVVDLGWRFRQIURQWWKHVHV\VWHPVZLWKDKROLstic-pluralistic approach that focuses [...] on that which is marginalised,

neglected or repressed, DIXQFWLRQWKDWKHFDOOVLPDJLQDWLYHFRXQWHrdiscourse (Zapf 2001: 93). 2QO\OLWHUDWXUHDVDGLVFRXUVHRIWKHVeFOXGHG25 FDQ>DUWLFXODWH@ZKDWRWKHUZLVHUHPDLQVXQDUWLFXODWHGLQWKH
available categories of cultural self-interpretation (93). The culturally
repressed, Zapf goes on to argue, thus becomes a power of cultural
creativity as it is brought into play with the artistic artefacts a society
produces and consumes. Thirdly and finally, he identifies the function
RIOLWHUDWXUHDVDUHLQWHJUDWLng inter-GLVFRXUVHLQVRIDUDVOLWHUDWXUHLV
able to bring togetheUFXOWXUDOO\VHSDUDWHGVSKHUHV (93). This process
LV GHVFULEHG DV WKH IHHGLQJ EDFN DQG UHLQWHJUDWLQJ RI WKH UHSUHVVHG
into the whole system of cultural discourses, by which literature contributes from the margins to the continual renewal of the cultural
centre (93).
It is important to note that
[t]his reintegration is by no means to be seen as a superficial harmonisation of
conflict [...]. One the contrary, the bringing together of the culturally separated
spheres characteristically sets off highly turbulent and conflictual processes,
which can produce catastrophic results, but which also appear as necessary catalysts for the renewal of cultural creativity. (93)
=DSIVPRGHOKHUHSRLQts to a truly interesting idea: first of all, literature and world influence each other by means of the fictional text itself. Secondly, the whole process can indeed be vaguely described as
HYROXWLRQDU\ but without falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy. It
is not a survival of the fittest (book?) that is envisioned but the under25
This phrase is taken from Lyotard (1993: 105), who, interestingly, originally used
it to describe ecology as such a discourse.
65
standing that crises can be met by means of intertextually related

works of artistic production. These texts provide human perception
with the imaginative forces necessary to solve or at least react to the
respective crisis. 26 Thirdly and with special significance for my
study OLWHUDWXUH LI LW DOZD\V FRQWULEXWHV IURP WKH PDUgins (Zapf
2001: 93), will possibly benefit from the perspective of postcolonialism. In postcolonial studies, there exists a heightened awareness of
centre-and-margin relations, and concepts of alterity abound. Both
foci, I believe, can be re-assessed with regard to ecocriticism. As argued above, it is the notion of alterity in particular that reveals striking
parallels to the idea of nature as the elusive other that can thus be engaged with.
The crucial question for me, however, lies hidden in what sounds
like only a side note: at first glance, it might seem interesting to see
how conflicts are described and aestheticised and thus provided with a
certain literary closure. Zapf argues, however, that a truly integrative
bringing-together of discourses will produce a renewal of its centre
without DSSO\LQJDsuperfiFLDOKDUPRQLVDWLRQ It is true that utopian
ideas and ultimate harmonisation in terms of a total relief of tensions
could be attempted in fiction simply by means of happy endings and
narrative closure. But in order to be an aesthetic contribution in terms
RI=DSIVGHILQLWLRQRIOLWHUDWXUHDVDVHPLRWLFIRUFH-field, fiction must
be effective on another level. This study will describe this level, and it
will be argued that literature provides for a harmonisation by virtue of
the singularLW\RIOLWHUDWXUH This singularity offers an aesthetic experience that does not rely on New Critical ideas of autonomous art;
rather, it allows for a temporal experience of otherness even though
DQGSDUWLFXODUO\EHFDXVHWKDWVLQJXODULW\FDQEHH[SHULHQFed only as a
process of adjustment in norms and habits whereby it is recognized,
affirmed, and, at least partially and temporarily, accommodated (Attridge 2004b: 63).
A harmonious literary closure would render literature incapable of
DGGUHVVLQJWKHconflictual processes Zapf describes and the aporias I
26
This is of course very much in line with other literary theoretical scholarship. See,
for example, Attridge (2004b)ZKROLNHZLVHFODLPVWKDW>L@WLVRQO\WKURXJKWKH
accumulation of individual acts of reading and responding, in fact, that large
cultural shifts occur(79). By adding the question of response, however, Attridge
focuses on a very important aspect that is overlooked in the model as proposed by
Zapf. I will therefore integrate it into my approach, which will be discussed in
Chapter 4.
66
outlined above. In fact, it would foreclose the functional potential that

=DSIGHVFULEHVDVWKHFatalyst for cultural creativity (Zapf 2001: 93).
A formal(ist) focus must therefore be on the staging of tensions or the
formulating of forms of literary harmonisation. These literary experiences may improve our perceptive abilities, making us capable of
thinking (about and with) the other and the natural world in ways we
may think we have lost but in fact still need to discover. While harmonious closure must ultimately prove useless in terms of an ecocritiFDOHQJDJHPHQWZLWKWH[WVMXVWDVLQ3KLOOLSVZRUGVWKHSXUVXLWRI
realism in the depiction of nature has produced a surfeit of kitsch
(2003: 164), the idea of language bending towards the world must be
conceived of in these terms of opening up an imaginative avenue for
experience. Harmonisation is thus not a question of content but of
narrative structures and interpretive rendering.
How exactly such a notion of structural harmonisation can be incorporated into the larger interpretive framework of ecocritical readings of literary form will be shown in the following chapters. A cenWUDOWDVNZLOOEHWRRXWOLQHWKHOLWHUDU\HYHQW although, and because,
literature is notoriously hard to define and, as Terry Eagleton says, an
DFFHSWDQFHRIVRPHFRQFHSWXDOIX]]LQHVVLVLQGHHGUHTXLUHG(DJOeWRQ ,Q D VHQVH HYHQ =DSIV FRPSUHKHQVLYH DSSURDFK WR
literary functions avoids the engagement with the questions inherent
WR D GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH HYHQW RI OLWHUDWXUH DOWKRXJK shifting RQHV
interpretive focus from the explicitly staged solution to aesthetic
means of literary singularity and experience is an essential contribution to ecocritical theory, Zapf concentrates first and foremost on the
more obvious realm of metaphors and symbolic images in his own
UHDGLQJV 7KLV LV ZK\ 7LPR 0OOHU FULWLFLVHV =DSIV ORFDWLRQ RI WKH
precise contact points of text and culture [...] primarily in symbols and
metaphors, which he reads as forms of representation and condensation of contemporary discourses (Mller 2008: 59; my translation).
If, however, more complex narrative strategies are considered in a
discussion of the aesthetic potential of fiction, the reading of fiction as
an event must entail an LPDJLQDWLYHOLYLQJWKURXJKRUSHUIRUPLQJRI
the text that responds simultaneously to what is said, the way in which
LW LV VDLG DQG WKH LQYHQWLYHQHVV DQG VLQJXODULW\ >@ RI WKH VD\LQJ
(Attridge 2004b: 60). Moreover, if the event of literature allows for a
negotiation of the meaning of nature, the literary text would have to be
understood both as a staged experience and as a dialogue between
participants of an interpretive community negotiating their environ-
67
ment. This event is grounded RQWKHWH[WVIRUPDOUHQGHULQJLWVUHFHption-aesthetic potential, and its functionality as an imaginative challenge.
0OOHU VXJJHVWV QRW applying WKH WULDGLF PRGHO >=DSIV FXOWXUDO
HFRORJ\ model] to the structures of condensation, but rather to the
text as a whole, understood as a narrative act that can be grasped narratologically (Mller 2008: 60; my translation). He tries such an application by describing what he sees DVFOHDUDQDORJLHVEHWZHHQ=DSIV
discursive triad and Grard *HQHWWHV VWUXFWXUDOLVW-narratological notions of histoire, rcit, and narration. The argument that is elaborated
upon in his thesis is interesting insofar as Mller tries to find a way of
UHILQLQJ =DSIV PRGHO E\ PHDQV RI WKH PRUH REMHFWLYH UDWLRQDOH RI
narratology, but ultimately the conflation of literary ecology and narratology remains unsatisfactory. For instance, he claims that since the
potential for cultural critique is often realised on a level beyond the
actual plot, the diegetic world provides the critical metadiscourse.
Thus, histoire connects with metadiscourse, rcit with counterdiscourse, and narration with reintegrative interdiscourse. Mller concedes that, ultimately, a clear correlation is hard to maintain (2008:
61) and indeed, one may ask why narrative techniques, for instance,
should not likewise be able to fulfil counterdiscursive functions. In
establishing the links between narratological categories and literary
functions, Mller overlooks the fact that cultural-ecological potential
cannot be bound logically to any descriptive typology.27
So, while a narratological approach to literature does play a pivotal
role in this study too, I will establish my narratological framework
differently. Instead of assumed parallels between narratology and ecocritical posits, my approach will account for the questions I outlined
above, namely the actual discursive (i.e. philosophical, epistemological) problems that trouble ecocriticism. Moreover, it will consider
other, similarly effective means of narrative harmonisation that do not
lie in a text, understood as a stable cultural artefact, but rather in the
interpretive processes of its readership.
Although Mller directs the attention towards the fact that the
function of a reintegrative interdiscourse is established in the play of
meta- and counterdiscourse, just as narration means the realisation of
histoire and rcit in the act of narrating, his notions of an extratextual
27
Mller is of course aware of these problems, and he has by now refined his approach significantly (see Mller 2011).
68
dimension of the function of literature do not take into full consideration the act of interpretation. It is not primarily the act of narrating that
renders the harmonisation possible; harmonisation is achieved in the
realisation of the work of art in the virtual space of understanding. Of
course, literary texts reintegrate various discourses within their textual
gestalt, but a harmonising and ethical function arguably assumes an
interpretive instance that allows the text to affect the readerly world.
So even if it may be tempting to stress the theoretical parallels and to
attempt a conflation of structuralistic narratology and ecocritical notions, the challenge of interpretation has to be part of a form-oriented
UHDGLQJRIOLWHUDWXUH2QO\WKHQFDQZHWDONRIDQDFWRIQDUUDWLRQ[...]
that transgresses the diegetic frame of reference and creates a link to
WKHUHDGHU (Mller 2008: 61; my translation).
So I would indeed second the claim that the questions and aporias I
have tried to outline above may be addressed on the level of narrative
strategies rather than a limited set of symbols and motifs. As the
novels route to reality is engendered particularly by their reliance on
IRUPDO LQQRYDWLRQ DQG QHJRWLDWLRQV RI UHDOLVP P\ DSSURDFK ZLOO
have to be flexible and hermeneutic rather than systematic. None of
the concepts employed OLWHUDWXUH QDWXUH FXOWXUH UHDOLVP
and so on can be understood in an ontological sense and must be
approached cautiously and with a self-UHIOH[LYH DZDUHQHVV RI RQHV
interpretive situation. As will be shown, what seems to be imprecision
at best and a catastrophic hindrance at worst will help to outline some
of the pivotal advantages of reading fiction in terms of EnvironMentality. In the next chapter, I will show that the demythologising
work of scholars like Fish, Rorty, and Eagleton, who question the idea
that literature has an ontological essence and argue for a communal
and conventional concept instead, proves particularly helpful when
reading postcolonial literature. The connection between aesthetics and
HWKLFV DQG WKH QHFHVVDU\ HQJDJHPHQW ZLWK RQHV RZQ UHDGHUO\ Hmbeddedness in an interpretive community thus point to the potential of
literature as well as to its restrictions. I will, in the following chapters,
outline my approach to addressing these tensions in literary readings.
This, I will argue, is how alterity and the experience of otherness can
enter a cultural sphere through the individual reading experience (see
Attridge 2004b: 19). The hermeneutic perspective suggested before
will prove to be an almost radical, yet extremely fruitful, epistemological challenge to the enterprise of (postcolonial) ecocriticism.
3RVWFRORQLDO7H[WVDQGWKH(YHQWRI)LFWLRQ
That aesthetics is closely linked to ethics is not a new insight (for a
recent discussion, see Middeke 2011; Harpham 2010). In the context
of the crisis of the imagination and environmental crisis, one may
focus, for instance, on what Terry Eagleton has said about the utopian
potential of fiction and the relevance of literary form. He writes that
OLWHUDU\ ZRUNV DFKLHYH LQ WKHLU IRUP ZKDW WKH\ RIWHQ HQRXJK IDLO Wo
DWWDLQLQWKHLUFRQWHQW>@ ,QWKHXWRSLDQDVSHFWRILWVIRUPOLWHUDU\
DUWVHHNVWRFRPSHQVDWHIRUWKHSDWKRVRILWVFRQWHQWEagleton 2012:
198-9). Notably, Eagleton sees this compensation realised in the very
paradox of literary writing and symbolic thought that VHHNWRUHVWRUH
unity to a world torn between Nature and Culture. This is a paradoxical operation, since the very means by which such unity may be
restored thought, language, symbol, are themselves the product of
WKLVILVVXUH/LNH Attridge, Eagleton conceptualises this narrative harmoniVDWLRQ LQ WHUPV RI DQ HYHQW DQG IROORZV KHUPHQHXWLF
scholars such as Iser and Gadamer as well as the semiotician Umberto
(FR ZKHQ KH FODLPV WKDW >W@H[WXDO PHVVDJHV DUH QRW VLPSO\ WR EH
read off from codes; they are events or semiotic acts irreducible to the
FRGHVZKLFKJHQHUDWHWKHP6RZKLOHDIRFXVRQIRUPLPSOLHVD
prior separation of form and content, we have to be aware, as Attridge
UHPLQGVXVWKDWWKHLGHDRIWKHDFW-HYHQWRIILFWion (Attridge 2004b:
58-62) calls for an eventual unification of both categories.
But the act-event of fiction is not made up out of thin air. In fact,
the expectations and the ability to act in terms of a particular readerly
performance are necessary. Richard M. Rorty stresses this point when
he claims that if we accept, sensu Gadamer, that human experience is
HVVHQWLDOO\OLQJXLVWLF*DGDPHUZHDOVRKDYHWRHPEUDFH
the idea that language is not a tool helping us to get hold of reality out
there but a convention by means of which a community negotiates
experiences and ideas of the real (see Rorty 1996: 25). In fact, by thus
disposing of objectivism and metaphysical beliefs at the same time,
5RUW\PDLQWDLQVWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIDFHUWDLQJURXSVFRnventions in a
language game to grapple with the real. A similar argument is made
70
by Fish (1980), whose idea of the interpretive community is even

more concerned with the understanding of literary texts: since we
cannot distinguish literary language from ordinary language by any
inherent features, literary meaning is dependent on the authority of the
interpretive community to which one belongs.
However, Eagleton reminds us, the essentialist and deterministic
VWDQFH RI )LVKV FRQFHSW LV SUREOHPDWLF From the viewpoint of the
idea of closed interpretive communities, the literary event would
merely VORW DQRWKHU VHW RI DVVXPSWLRQV LQWR SODFH Eagleton 2012:
101) there is no escape from what we know and recognise in the act
of interpretation. According to this view, he concludes, the act of interpretation is like
trying to leap out of your own skin or haul yourself up by your own bootstraps,
VLQFHFRQYLFWLRQVWKDWUXQWKLVGHHSDUHZKDWFRQVWLWXWHRQHVLGHQWLW\LQWKHILUVW
place. [...] The subject for Fish is effectively the prisoner of its beliefs, which exert upon it a rigorously deterministic power. [...] They are, in a word, transcendental. (101-2)
It is not even necessary to theorise this impasse on abstract levels,

but a look at the context of postcolonial ecocriticism helps us to see
the dilemma of such a stance: in a postcolonial context, in a transnational environment, and in an age of global environmental crisis,
understanding across strictly defined interpretive communities is necessary. What is more, it is possible: what it takes is a grasp of the potential that literary fiction has to fuse horizons in the act of understanding. Eagleton points rightly to the implications for postcolonial
criticism when he mock-VXPPDULVHV )LVKV FRQFHSW E\ FOaiming:
$Q\:HVWHUQHUZKRLPDJLQHVKHFDQVXEMHFWWKH:HVWHUQZD\RIOLIH
to fundamental critique must be fooling himself. Where on earth could
KHEHVWDQGLQJWRGRVR"
Gadamer and Rorty would DQVZHU WKDW LQ RUGHU WR VXEMHFW RQHV
view to fundamental critique, one has to understand the hermeneutic
situation that determines the reach of personal vision. This environment literally becomes the starting point for a fusion of different horizons which, it is true, do not allow us to change completely or become
the other. But they allow new perspectives and experiences to emerge;
they allow, as it were, the event of fiction.
There is therefore good reason to now consider the relevance of
postcolonial literature more closely and from the hermeneutic standpoint developed so far. Two aspects are crucial for this: a focus on the
3RVWFRORQLDO7H[WVDQGWKH(YHQWRI)LFWLRQ71
aesthetic potential of literature and a particular regard of WKH WH[WV

alterity. To some extent, textual alterity relates to the fact that the
QRYHOV , DP DERXW WR UHDGDUHSRVWFRORQLDOWH[WV and just as traditionally, hermeneutics profited from the temporal distance of texts,
EnvironMentality EHQHILWV IURP HQFRXQWHUV ZLWK ZRUNV RI DUW WKDW
DUH FKDOOHQJLQJ EHFDXVH RI WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ VLPXOWDQHRXVO\
H[LVWLQJ FXOWXUDO IRUPDWLRQV $WWULGJH E My notion of
SRVWFRORQLDO WH[WV therefore approaches postcolonial literature in
English in terms of a potential for dialogue. This dialogue generates
EnvironMentality, and in analysing the aesthetic conditions of the
event of fiction, I will show how WKLVIRFXVWXUQVSURFHVVHVRImarketing the margins as Graham Huggan (2001) describes the promoWLRQ RI WKH postcolonial exotiF into processes of negotiation, and
KRZ LW DYRLGV WKH JOREDO FRPPRGLILFDWLRQ RI FXOWXUDO GLIIHUence
(vii).
Instead of reifying cultural difference, the distance between my
individual hermeneutic situation and the literary environments will
challenge my ecocritical readings by constantly drawing attention to
moments of otherness and tension. Postcolonial literature stages and
emplots fundamental tensions and contradictions, and interpreting
these texts highlights RQHVVKDUHLQWKHFRQIOLFWXDOFRQGLWLRQVRIFUisis. It thus allows for an experience of the natural world that is cautious, tentative and open to alterity. In the context of the hermeneutics
of EnvironMentality, this experience allows for the event of fiction to
EHFRPHOLWHUDWXUHVVXEVWDQWLDO, ethical contribution in an age of envirRQPHQWDOFULVLV,QWKHODVWFKDSWHU,GLVFXVVHG+XEHUW=DSIVFRQWHntion that literature holds the potential for evoking processes of critical
interaction with (ecological) crises that function in terms of an imaginary harmonisation. In what follows, I will describe the critical and,
potentially, harmonising function of literature as a process that is
grounded in its dialogic nature and that presupposes an interplay of
textual traces and readerly actualisation.1
1
7KLVLQWHUSOD\RIWH[WXDOIRUPDQGUHDGHUO\DFWXDOLVDWLRQRUFRQFUHWLVDWLRQKDV
been described by both Roman Ingarden and Wolfgang Iser,WLV,VHUVidea of the
virtuality of the literary work that I will refer to in this study. Iser maintains that
>W@KHJHVWDOWRIDWH[WQRUPDOO\WDNHVRQRUUDWKHULVJLYHQ>D@IL[HGRUGHILQDble outline [...] but on the other hand, if reading were to consist of nothing but an
uninterrupted building up of illusions, it would be a suspect, if not downright
dangerous, process: instead of bringing us into contact with reality, it would wean
us away from realities (1974: 284).
72
A hermeneutic engagement with postcolonial environments faces a

twofold challenge. On the one hand, environmental crisis is a global
phenomenon. Since climate change, environmental migration and
what McKibben has dubbed the end of nature (1989) cannot be restricted by national borders, ecocritical thinking tends to be global in
its perspective too. The responses to environmental crises, it is argued,
have to be transnational, and following Heise (2008), we can speak of
WKH QHHG IRU D sense of planet in environmental thought. On the
other hand, studies in environmental justice (e.g. Adamson et al. 2002)
have shown that the issue is more complicated. Climate change might
be a global phenomenon but, arguably, some societies will be more
affected by it than others, and more often than not, the causes for ecological catastrophes are social, economic and political. Consequently,
environmental crises do not foster a world risk society (Beck 1999);
instead, they complicate and enforce existing inequalities. Val Plumwood comments on this conflict by comparing ecological crises to the
sinking of the Titanic. She contrasts the liberal-democratic myth of
this sinking men waiting till women and children were in the lifeboats with WKH VLWXDWLRQ WRGD\ LQ WKH UHDO HFRORJLFDO ZRUOG RQ
which we are passengers, unlike the TitanicWKHPLOOLRQDLUHVGRQWJR
GRZQ ZLWK WKH VKLS DQG LWV FHUWDLQly not woman and children first
(2002: 2).
Postcolonial criticism considers this imbalance and points to the
ongoing post- RU QHRFRORQLDO FRQGLWLRQ RI LQWHQVLILHG DQG VXVWDLQHG
exploitation of the majority of humans and non-KXPDQV (Mukherjee
2010: 5) as opposed to claims of a uniform distribution of environPHQWDOULVNDQGSUREOHPV,QVWHDGRIWKHG\VWRSLDQ(FR5HSXEOLFWKDW
Plumwood critically evokes, a sense of planet would therefore have to
entail a sense of difference, an awareness of the uniqueness of specific
environments and the mechanisms RI XQHYHQ GHYHORSPHQW VHH
Mukherjee 2010). This is why postcolonial ecocriticism scrutinises
literary texts as places where different environmental imaginaries are
articulated. With a specific focus on the potential of postcolonial literature, Anthony Vital asserts that GLIIHUHQW ODQJXDJHV >@ SHUPLW
varieties of understanding (2008: 90).
%XWZKDWLVDSRVWFRORQLDOWH[W"$QGKRZFDQUHDGLQJLWFRQWULbute to the hermeneutics of EnvironMentality? Already in 1987,
Stephen Slemon VWDWHGWKDWSRVWFRORQLDOGHQRWHVILUVWDQGIRUHPRVWD
reading praxis and not a historical period. Nor does the term refer to
the ontology of a text: texts from former colonies can be read post-
colonially or not, but they are not postcolonial in essence (see also
Mukherjee 2010: 5). Nevertheless, I have to account for the fact that
the texts I focus on are all set in non-European or non-US-American
environments and thus they often depict both the FRQWDFW ]RQHV
(Pratt 1992) and dividing lines between Western and non-Western
cultures. Thus, a keen awareness of difference already informs most of
the texts in a very broad sense, and in reading these texts, I have to be
open to this sense of difference. I account for this interpretive situation
E\ FDOOLQJ WKH WH[WV SRVWFRORQLDO not because this description is
particularly precise but because it suffices as shorthand. As it were,
the distance between my LQGLYLGXDOKHUPHQHXWLFKRUL]RQDQGWKHWH[WV
cultural and environmental contexts poses a particular interpretive
cKDOOHQJH3RVWFRORQLDOWH[WVQRWRQO\TXHVWLRQWKHVXVWDLQHGH[SORLWation [...] by [...] metropolitan European/north American elites (Mukherjee 2010: 5), but they require, as Erhard Reckwitz puts it, a close
hermeneutic engagement since, GXH WR WKHLU FXltural distance, the
alterity of the texts increases (Reckwitz 2000: 18; my translation). A
similar point is made by Derek Attridge (2004b: 50-3), and, following
Gadamer, it can be said that the process of understanding literary fiction seeks to understand differently by fusing two horizons (1994: 297,
306). Without essentialising the spatial distances, the heterogeneity of
FXOWXUDOIRUPDWLRQVDGGVWRWKHKHUPHQHXWLFFKDOOHQJHRIUHDGLQJWKH
HQYLURQPHQW 7UXWK LV QRW HYHU\ZKHUH WKH VDPH 5LFKDUG 5RUW\
ZULWHV EHFDXVH ODQJXDJH LV QRW HYHU\ZKHUH WKH VDPH 6: 30).
Nevertheless, in fusing horizons in the act of readerly interpretation,
the deterministic tone of the interpretive community is repeatedly
challenged.
Needless to say, VXFKDIRFXVRQSRVWFRORQLDOWH[WVGRHVQRWLPSO\
that by addressing postcolonial engagements with the environment,
QDWLRQDO ZD\V RI GHDOLQJ ZLWK QDWXUH FDQ EH IRXQG $UJXDEO\ WKH
idea to describe, via literature, a South-African, Australian or Canadian way of being-in-the-world would be both essentialist and an illconceived model of the role of national states in postcolonial communities FI%XUQHWW ZD.DQJHWKH)DXOVWLFK.DOXSDKDQD
1986). Defining postcolonial literatures as distinct, national literatures,
which in turn provide us with specific local knowledge about nature or
the mentalities behind environmentalist concerns, would therefore be
doomed to fail. As Frank Schulze-Engler and Sissy Helff have remarked, it is indeed a dated, essentialist view that postcolonial literatures can be understood as a
74
mosaic of more or less discrete (usually national) cultures characterized by an inKHUHQWGLIIHUHQFHIURP%ULWDLQDQGWKH86$7RGD\WKHILHOGRIWKH1HZ/LWHUaWXUHVKDVFRPHWREHseen as a world-wide network of Anglophone literatures and
cultures with increasingly fuzzy edges. (Schulze-Engler & Helff 2009: x)
Schulze-Engler and Helff point to the fact that any attempt to locate
FXOWXUHDQGOLWHUDWXUHH[FOXVLYHO\LQWKHFRQWH[W of ethnicities or naWLRQVLVUDSLGO\ORVLQJSODXVLELOLW\ (x), and it surely seems appropriate
to extend this claim to the representations of nature as well.
I have argued that ecocriticism struggles with a number of aporias,
and I have claimed that it is through these conflicts that literature
comes into its own. The particular challenge lies in the aesthetic
analysis of the literary texts in question, and I agree that thinking
about postcolonial criticism and ecocriticism together is a promising
attempt in this respect.2 Mukherjee sees numerous points of convergence and maintains that any one-sided perspective is bound to miss
crucial aspects that the other perspectives may provide. He concludes
WKDW DQ\ ILHOG SXUSRUWLQJ WKH JOREDO FRQGLWLRQV RI FRORQLDOLsm and
imperialism [...] cannot but consider the complex interplay of environmental categories, ZKLOH RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG DQ\ ILHOG SXUSRUWLQJ
to attach interpretative importance to environment [...] must be able to
trace the social, historical and materLDOFRRUGLQDWHVRILWVIRFDOSRLQW
(2006: 144). For Mukherjee, the joining of both perspectives leads to a
IRUPRIHFR-PDWHULDOLVP
I disagree with that conclusion, however. The necessity for ecomaterialism is grounded RQ WKH EHOLHI WKDW QDWXUHV PDWHULDOLW\ SUoYLGHVSULYLOHJHGDFFHVVWRWKHUHDODQGWKDWWKHPDWHULDOGLPHQVLRQ
of nature justifies or requires a PDWHULDOLVW UHDGLQJ %XW LW GRHV
not; neither does the materiality of nature require materialism, nor can
discourses about nature provide a direct ZD\ RI JHWWLQJ KROG RI WKH
UHDO, as I have shown above. As yet, however, nature has been con2
Malcolm Sen, who repeatedly called for such a convergence, writes that respectLYHZRUNVRIOLWHUDWXUH>FKDOOHQJH@WKHHIILFDcy of discussing postcolonial environmentalism in isolation from the developmental policies being enacted in the
6XQGDUEDQV6LQFH6HQXVHVThe Hungry Tide as a case study (hence
the reference to the Sundarbans), his contextualising of developmentalist issues is
particularly interesting for this study. His closing statement about the novel is
WKDWLWPD\EHUHDGDVDOLWHUDU\ZRUNLQZKLFKWKHLGHRORJLFDOIRUFHLVHFRFULWLFDO
but in which the moral and philosophical foundation rests on a post-national
PLQGVHW
FHLYHGDVVRPHWKLQJ PRUH VWDEOHWKDQ FXOWXUH ZKHQLWFRPHV WR WKH

effects of globalised societies. Although processes of economic gloEDOLVDWLRQ KDYH DIIHFWHG QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQWV YLD, for example,
globalised means of commerce and tourism, it seems to many that the
concept of nature has remained unaffected by the social struggles of
colonial politics. Both due to tKHJOREDOLW\RIQDWXUHDQGEHFDXVHRI
WKHDOOHJHGQHFHVVLW\DQGGHVLUHWRVDYHWKHZRUOGDVDZKROHHQYLUonmentalist thinking tends to be LPSHUDWLYH (D. Wood 2004: 103-7).
Against societies, which are understood to be in constant flux both
economically and politically, and against a modernity that is likewise
VHHQDVliquid%DXPDQQDWXUHthus appears as a counterbalance. This, however, is how environmental concerns can turn into a
IRUP RI HFRORJLFDO LPSHULDOLVP &URVE\ 1993) since Western ideas
of conservation and the management of natural resources often tend to
clash with local means of dealing with nature. For instance, by identifying non-Western natural sites as worthy of preservation, Western
environmentalism perpetuates the notion of postcolonial societies as
EHLQJXQGHU-GHYHORSHGRUGHYHORSLQJ7KXVLWLQWHJUDWHVWKHQDWural world into the framework of Western control and nourishes the
P\WKRIGHYHORSPHQWDOLVP'HYHORSPHQW>@LVDVPXFKDPHFKanism of discursive control as an agency of economic management,
based on the assumption that western values it inculcates are indisputably the right ones (Huggan and Tiffin 2010: 28). What is more,
critically engaging with uneven developments often entails ignoring
WKDW(XURSHDQLGHDV and thus forms of academic critique as well
WKDWZHUHXQLYHUVDOZHUHDOVRDWRQHDQGWKHVDPHWLPHGUDZQIURP
very particular intellectual and historical traditions that could not
FODLP DQ\ XQLYHUVDO YDOLGLW\ &KDNUDEDUW\ [LLL 1DWXUH might
be universal, and environmental crisis might be global, but environPHQWDOLVP MXVW OLNH RWKHU VXFK LVPV is DOZD\V DQG DOUHDG\ PRGiILHG E\ SDUWLFXODU KLVWRULHV [LY DQG can comprise a neocolonial
stance. 2Q DFFRXQW RI WKLV VKRXOG :HVWHUQ HQYLURQPHQWDOLVP EH
rejected as neocolonialism?
Timothy &ODUN DUJXHV WKDW >P@DMRU HQYLURQPHQWDO SUREOHPV FDQ
fall outside the schemas of oppositional postcolonial thinking altogether EHFDXVH the conflicts of overpopulation or the question of
VDYLQJ natureYHUVXV feeding peopleas Holmes Rolston puts it
cannot be approached in terms RI DQ acceptable solution &ODUN
2011: 126-7). The conflict of Social versus Deep Ecology, exemplified by the question of whether to IHHG SHRSOH RU WR VDYH QDWXUH
76
stands as a clear example of such a conflict that forecloses the possibility of a clear-cut way out of this dualism. It is apparent that we can
neither opt for the natural rights of all elements of the environment nor
for the very poor, the weak and the powerless by means of playing the
one off against the other (see Roy 1999 for a detailed discussion of
this impasse). In the very same vein, Huggan and Tiffin describe as
one of the problems of such a postcolonial-HFRFULWLFDOSURMHFWWKHXnproblematized division between people (on the postcolonial side) and
nature (on the ecocritical one) (Huggan and Tiffin 2010: 3. See also
Mukherjee 2010: 46 and Nixon 2005).
This impasse informs the texts that I will be discussing in the following chapters and I second MukherjeeVGLDJQRVLV that postcolonial
OLWHUDWXUH RIIHU>V@ D FULWLTXH RI LWV VWDWXV >@ E\ UHJLVWHULQJ HQYLURnPHQWVLPXOWDQHRXVO\DWWKHOHYHORIWKHPHDQGIRUP (2010: 10). In the
FRQWH[W RI 0XNKHUMHHV QRWLRQ RI HFR-materialism, this means that
HFR-/environmentalism should be able to materialize postcolonial
criticism, while postcolonialism should be able to historize eco/environmentalism (18). Although a reciprocal emphasis on the respective theoretical blind spots is undoubtedly necessary, MukherjeeV
notion of eco-materialism cannot resolve the quandaries it identifies.
His claim is persuasive by virtue of its rhetorical appeal, not because
such balance can actually be achieved. As argued above, the material
reality of the environment does not require materialist readings. Only
LIZHDVVLJQHGQDWXUHDVWDWXVPRUHUHDOWKDQWKHRWKHUQDWXUDOLVations postcolonial studies have criticised could we take the natural
ZRUOGDVWKH\DUGVWLFNE\PHDQVRIZKLFKDQHFR-PDWHULDOLVWYLHwpoint can be determined.3
On the level of the literary text and its exegesis, this conflict is
most visible with regard to realist writing DQGWKHUHIHUHQWLDODVSHFWV
of literature. %XHOOV FHOHEUDWLRQ RI WKH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQDO IXQFWLRQ RI
literature seems particularly absurd in the context of postcolonial writing. Stephen Greenblatt is only one of many scholars who point out
WKDW (XURSHDQV GHSOR\HG D OXPEHULQJ MHUU\-built, but immensely
3
Bergthaller (2006) also criticises the supposed ethical force of texts that refer to
WKH PDWHULDOLW\ RI QDWXUH DUJXLQJ DJDLQVW WKH QRWLRQ WKDW QDWXUH SURFHVVHV D
NLQGRILQWULQVLFQRUPDWLYLW\7KHFODLPKHVD\VWKDWWKH ethical force of a
text is directly related to its capacity for accurate representation rests on the tacit
DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW WKH NQRZOHGJH RI QDWXUHV PDWHULDOLW\ DQG VWUXFWXUH LV LQ LWVHOI
sufficient to ground claims as to what constituteV SURSHU EHKDYLRU WRZDUGV LW
(159).
powerful mimetic machinery (1991: 6). And Edward Said maintains

WKDW WKHUH LV QR VXFK WKLQJ DV D GHOLYHUHG SUHVHQFH (1991: 21) in
the postcolonial context, mimetic representation is always a form of
ZRUOGLQJThus, the belief in the mimetic qualities of nature writing
may not only OHDGWRDVXUfeit of kitsch (Phillips 2003: 164); in the
context of (post)colonialism, it was and is part of the repressive power
of the imperialist centre (see also Bhabha 1987).
It is therefore not surprising that postcolonial criticism has an affinity to postmodern deconstructions of representation, as Reckwitz argues.4 And there are quite a few scholars who think of postcolonial
DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO FULWLFLVP DV GLDPHWULFDOO\ RSSRVHG ,Q (QYLURnmentalism and Postcolonialism, Rob Nixon (2005) names a number
of fundamental oppositions: a focus on hybridity on the one hand and
purity on the other, theories of displacement as opposed to the appreFLDWLRQ RI D VHQVH RI SODFH ZLOGHUQHVV DV LQGHSHQGHQW IURP KXPDQ
thought on the one hand, and processes of discursive naturalisation on
the other. Therefore, the concepts of postcolonial ecocriticism cannot
be theorised without taking into account what has formerly been conFHDOHGLQWKHFRQVWLWXWLYHVLOHQFHVWKDWKDYHGHYHORSHGEHWZHHQHQYLUonmental and postcolonial studies (235).5
It might not be necessary to go as far as Huggan who sees postFRORQLDO VWXGLHV DV OXUFKLQJ LQWR FULVLV DQG ZKR FDOOV
WKH ILHOG PHWKRGRORJLFDOO\ IODZHG RU HYHQ LQWHOOHFWXDOO\ EDQNUXSW
(279). But the theoretical dialogue is indeed more complicated than a
simple bringing-together of two approaches suggests. The hermeneutics of EnvironMentality accounts for that by turning the conflict into
a potential. On an aesthetic level, this conflict is underscored because,
DV 6XVLH 2%ULHQ DUJXHV WKHUH H[LVW GLIIHUHQW NLQG>V@ Rf readerly
SOHDVXUHHDFKDSSURDFKVHHNVWRFXOWLYDWHDQG
5HFNZLW] FLWHV 0DUJDUHW 5RVHV FRQFHSW RI WKH SDURGLF HSLVWHPH DQG
PDLQWDLQVWKDWWKHUHDOLVWQRYHOKDVEHFRPHDSRVWPRGHUQDQGSRVWFRORQLDOWDUJHW
IRUSDURGLFHSLVWHPH; my translation).
In tKHLU DWWHPSW DW EULGJLQJ WKH GLYLGH (OL]DEHWK 'H/RXJKUH\ DQG *HRUJH %
Handley (2011) QDPH IRXU LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI RYHUODS DQ DZDUHQHVV RI WKH
relation between geography and colonialism, the critique of Enlightenment dualisms, a critical stance toward anthropocentrism and the interest in subaltern agency (20-5).
78

aesthetic value in postcolonial criticism [manifests in] the marked preference for
texts which afforded the critic the satisfaction of performing a skilful deconstructive manoeuvre,
ZKLOH HFRFULWLFLVP E\ FRQWUDVW SUHIHUV WKH UHDOLVW WH[W 2%ULHQ

2007: 184). Ecocriticism therefore elicited charges of navete because
it sought to VWXG\ WKDW ZKLFK LV and postcolonial criticism had to
find this objective essentialistic. However, as regards the claim of
HVVHQWLDOLVP DQG HSLVWHPLF YLRlence (Spivak 1988: 283), Huggan
FRPSODLQV WKDW SRVWFRORQLDO FULWLFLVP KDVWDNHQ IXOODGYDQWDJH Rf its
RZQVHPDQWLFYDJXHQHVV>] yield[ing] a cache of definitions, each of
these recognised as provisional, as if in anticipation of the next to
come (2001: 17).6 :KDW +XJJDQ FDOOV D semantic vagueness can
probably best be understood by taking into account the influences of
poststructuralism on postcolonial studies and hence a certain wariness
of essentialist, ORJRFHQWULF ODQJXDJH. From the perspective of postcolonial studies, the theoretical conceptualisation of postcolonial ecocriticism therefore marks an interesting challenge for the theorisation
of the postcolonial as such since
[t]here are signs in recent postcolonial criticism that the love-affair with poststructuralism might be over; and that locally produced theories and methods might
prove in the end to be more productive than the reliance on Euro-American philosophical trends and habits of thought. (Huggan 2001: 3)
Huggan refers to a branch of critical engagement with postcolonial

theory that sees postcolonial studies as decidedly linked to poststructuralist thinking and, therefore, a distinct focus on discursivity and
textuality. In (postcolonial) ecocritical studies, this focus is contested
as cynically disregarding the actual life situation of (ex-)colonised
peoples by means of an abstract, academic LOQ\DSDVGHKRUV-texte,
which almost limits the practice of resistance to literature, and questions of oppression to questions of linguistic representation. This perception, however, does not truly reflect the variety of postcolonial
theory.7 But, even if the two fields were that different, could postcolo6
Huggan (2009: 9n1) SURYLGHVDQHODERUDWHFRPPHQWRQWKHSRVWFRORQLDO definiWLRQLQGXVWU\, the subtleties of which are negligible in my discussion of postcolonial ecocriticism.
See Reckwitz (2000) for a comprehensive overview of the theoretical field and, as
examples of the latter positions, Parry (2004) and Ahmad (2008). The problem
WKDWSRVWFRORQLDOLW\DVDQDFDGHPLF ILHOGKDVEHFRPHD comprador intelligent-
nial ecocriticism calm the waters? Or would a bit of stormy weather

benefit the hermeneutic horizon? I think it would, and I believe that
the strength of postcolonial ecocriticism is that it does not resolve the
tensions inscribed into its theoretical DNA; rather, it thrives on them,
and it also offers the means of discussing texts that thrive on these
tensions.
Therefore, I find it remarkable that many debates and critical arguments seem to lose sight of the aesthetic potential of the texts in
queVWLRQ 5HFNZLW] SRLQWV WR WKH IDFW WKDW WH[WV DUH WUHDWHG DV GRFuments about particular attitudes most of the time, but the differentia
specifica of the literary [...] often remains unacknowledged (2000:
31; my translation). I agree with Reckwitz, and I think that precisely
because of the inextricability of its tensions, postcolonial ecocriticism
LVFDSDEOH RI DGGUHVVLQJ WKLVUHODWLYHDXWRQomy of aesthetic production (Moore-Gilbert quoted in Reckwitz 2000: 30). Many literary
texts engage, in condensed form, ZLWKWKHGHEDWHRQQDWXUHVRQWRORJ\
outlined in the second chapter of this study: a universalistic concept of
the natural always contravenes culturally intelligible representations
RI QDWXUH DQG FXOWXUH LQ SRVWFRORQLDO VWXGLHV LV DOZD\V DOVR XQGHrstood as highly heterogeneous in its relation to (colonial) ideology and
the struggles with it. 7KHLQWHUVHFWLRQRISRVWFRORQLDODQGJUHHQWKeory thus provides a profound epistemological challenge. This is why
the aesthetic responses to it transcend the broad-brush portrayal of
ecocriticism as EHLQJFRQFHUQHGZLWKQDWXUHDQGSRVWFRORQLDOVWXGLHV
ZLWKWKHKXPDQRQO\
It is therefore my intention to describe literary texts with regard to
their hermeneutic potential for staging these complex intersections and
WHQVLRQV ,QVWHDG RI ZRUOGLQJ SRVWFRORQLDO HQYLURQPHQWV , ZDQW WR
engage with the aesthetic form of texts that stage these environments.
From that angle, the problem that postcolonial literature in English
UHSUHVHQWVRQO\DIUDFWLRQRIWKHWRWDOcultural activity and production
RI >D@ FRXQWU\ (Mukherjee 2010: 7) 8 can be turned into a starting
point for dialogue. Certainly, they are part of a global economy, but
they can likewise EH XQGHUVWRRG DV DQ DUWLVWLF FULWLTXH RI WKHLU RZQ
sia: a relative small, Western-style, Western-trained group of writers and thinkers

who mediate the trade in cultural commodities of world capitalism at the periSKHU\LVYHU\PXFKTXHVWLRQHGby these approaches (Appiah qtd in Childs et al.
2006: 17. See also Chakrabarty 2000).
0XNKHUMHHVVWDWHPHQWUHIHUVWROLWHUDWXUHIURP,QGLDEXW,WKLQN and I will show
that his claim can be extended.
80
sociological positionDQGPDNHH[RWLFLVPELWHEDFN, as Mukherjee

claims (8). I will explain and demonstrate how this takes effect in the
next chapter and my subsequent readings.
Unlike Mukherjee and, to a certain extent, Huggan and Tiffin, who
argue for a materialist understanding too, the readings in the following
chapters will employ a perspective that acknowledges otherness (cultural and natural) and points of convergence (the English language),
and that tries to negotiate the aesthetic potentials of the texts under
scrutiny. If a work of literature is DVLQJXODULW\LWLVWKLVVLQJXODULW\
that helps us understand otherness because otherness
exists only in the registering of that which resists my usual modes of understanding, and that moment of registering alterity is a moment in which I simultaneously
acknowledge my failure to comprehend and find my procedures of comprehension
beginning to change. (Attridge 2004b: 27)
Instead of looking for a balanced but still materialist understanding of

WKHRWKHU,will address otherness as a quality of literary experience.
7KLVRWKHUQHVVUHIOHFWVEDFNRQWKHVSHFLILFUHDGHUVJUDVSRIWKHZRUOG
encountered in literary works of art DQGXOWLPDWHO\LWLVWKXVWKDWYLD
the work of an individual or group of individuals otherness enters, and
FKDQJHV D FXOWXUDO VSKHUH $WWULGJH E =DSIV LGHD RI WKH
ethical aspects of literature understood as cultural ecology, and the
formalist LGHD RI DQ HYROXWLRQ RI QRYHOLVWLF IRUP LQ RUGHU WR ILQG
ways of engaging with reality rely on this insight. Both ideas illustrate
KRZILFWLRQFRQVWDQWO\WULHVWRILQGZD\VEH\RQGXVXDOPRGHVRIXnderstanding.
This allows us to see why ZKHQ,HQFRXQWHUDOWHULW\,HQFRXQWHU
not the other as such (how could I?) but the remolding of the self that
brings the other into being as, necessarily no longer entirely other
(24). Attridge here presents a perfectly hermeneutical account of engaging with otherness in fiction, and it is important to note that both
the focus on otherness and the awareness that otherness can never be
fully appropriated hint at the value of such an approach in the context
of postcolonial ecocriticism.9
9
Attridge stresses WKDWWKHLGHDRIOLWHUDU\VLQJXODULW\DQGDOWHULW\LVQRWWREHLGHQtiILHGZLWKVXFKSKUDVHVDVWKHYLROHQFHRIUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRUWKHGRPHVWLFDWLRQ

RI WKH RWKHU 7KDW PRGHO SUHVXSSRVHV D QDUUDWLYH LQ ZKLFK WKH RWKHU VWDUWV E\
being wholly different and then is stripped of its otherness so that it can be integrated or manipulated. [Here, instead, the other is other only] in relating to me
EnvironMentality is concerned with this challenge of reading alterity and the question of how an engagement with nature in literature
FDQEHGHVFULEHGDVDZD\RIGHDOLQJZLWKRWKHUQHVV$WWULGJHDUJXHV
that a literary engagement with otherness LV D KDQGOLQJ RI ODQJXDJH
ZKHUHE\ VRPHWKLQJ ZH PLJKW FDOO RWKHUQHVV RU DOWHULW\ RU WKH
otheULVPDGHRUDOORZHGWRLPSDFWXSRQH[LVWLQJFRQILJXUDWLRQVRI
an indiYLGXDOV PHQWDO ZRUOG (2004b: 19). Literature is capable of
making accessible the conflicts outlined above as an imaginary chalOHQJHE\DFWLQJSRZHUIXOO\WRKROGWKHSROLWLFDODQGthe ethical up for
scrutiny by momentarily dissociating them from their usual pressing
context, performing the ethical decision and the political gesture
(119-20, emphasis orig.). Attridge describes this potential, which is
YHU\FORVHWR=DSIVGHSUDJmatised action-by-proxy (Zapf 2001: 867; my translation), as a singularity that fictional literature alone is able
to create. Reading fiction thus becomes an ethical act in its own right:
LWV GLIIHUHQFH IURP RWKHU NLQGV RI ZULWLQJ DQG RWKHU NLQGV RI UHDdiQJ admittedly VROYHV no problems and saves no souls, but it is,
QHYHUWKHOHVVeffective, even if its effects are not predictable enough
to serve a political or moral program (Attridge 2004b: 4; emphasis
orig.). Contrary to the objectives of a predeteUPLQHGDJHQGDUHDGLQJ
postcolonial texts ecocritically thus becomes an ethical act that constitutes itself through the qualities of literature and not by an application
of moral concepts to a text; the ethical quality of such a reading practice emerges as an opening up of imaginative spaces to be explored.
TKLVLVZKDW$WWULGJHFDOOVWKHliterary eventE-62. See also
Attridge 2004a: 9).10
10
>@DQGLWVRWKHUQHVVLVUHJLVWHUHGLQWKHDGMXVWPHQWV,KDYHWRPDNHLQRUGHUWR
acknowledge it (2004b: 30).
$WWULGJHVFRQFHSWRIWKHOLWHUDU\HYHQWis grounded largely in Derridean thinking.
'HUULGDGHILQHGWKHHYHQWDVDUHYROXWLRQDU\LQVWDQWWKDWEHORQJVWRQRKLVWRULFDO
WHPSRUDOFRQWLQXXP and relies on being doubled by a code (Derrida 1992a: 41.
See also Derrida 1992b). More specifically, conflicts such as the one between
Deep and Social Ecology can be addressed. This is in line with ecocritical objecttives, ZKLFKXQGHUVWDQGWKHWZREUDQFKHVRIHQYLURQPHQWDOWKLQNLQJDVGLYHUJHQW
sometimes antipathetic philosophies, that are hard to unify on a purely discursive level (Parham 2010: 23). 1HYHUWKHOHVVWKHQHHGIRUWKHWZRDSSURDFKHVWREH
reconciledLVFOHDUO\WKHUH,WLVDV-RKQ3DUKDPDUJXHVRQHRIWKHFUXFLDO
WDVNV RI D PRGHUQ HQYLURQPHQWDO HWKLFV 3DUKDPV PRYH WRZDUGV D KXPDQLVW
HFRFULWLFLVP WULHV WR DFFRXQW IRU ERWK DQ HFRORJLFDO XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH ZRUOG
and the merits of a humanist tradition that has, amongst other things, cultivated
literary discourse and thus allowed literary texts to unfold their potential for con-
82
The experience of such an event of literature does not lead to predetermined ends, but it can foster an imaginative exploration of the
contradictions of environmental thinking and the place of the human
in the world as literary negotiations and imaginative solutions are
H[SHULHQFHGE\WKHUHDGHU>@as an event, an event which opens new
possibilities of meaning and feeling (Attridge 2004b: 59; emphasis
orig.). As far as the concepts of aesthetic value are concerned, the
tension between a (somewhat) realist orientation of ecocriticism (understood as an interest in the mimetic qualities of texts) and the discursive foci in interpretation that play a role in postcolonial criticism
may moreover HQJHQGHUDVHQVHRIWKHHVVHQWLDOXQLW\RIKXPDQVDQG
environment, of history and nature (Mukherjee 2010: 63). Huggan
and Tiffin argue in a similar vein when they suggest that
postcolonialism is well positioned to offer insight [into the relation and tension
between man and animal as well as the power and subjugation of both nature and
WKH RWKHU@ 3RVWFRORQLDOLVPV PDMRU WKHRUHWLcal concerns: otherness, racism and
miscegenation, language, translation, the trope of cannibalism, voice and the problems of speaking of and for others [...] offer immediate entry points for a retheorising of the place of animals in relation to human societies. (Huggan & Tiffin
2010: 135)
What they fail to put forth, however, is an approach to the particular

narrative form by means of which fiction enables the experience of
these concerns. Yet it is this experience that allows for a way of reading these conflicts not in terms of a dualism but as events of singularity.
To outline such an approach is the intention of my study. And
while Norbert Platz and, to a certain extent, Huggan and Tiffin focus
RQ WKH WKHRUHWLFDO OLQNDJH EHWZHHQ 'HHS (FRORJ\ DQG HFRFULWLFLVP
(see Platz 2000: 314; see also Clark 2011: 89) DQGPDLQWDLQWKDWOLterature contains a subversive potential which questions the validity of
dominant ideologies (Platz 2000: 315), I seek to transcend this link
between criticism and deep ecological theory. I am, arguing via Zapf,
interested in the processes of narrative harmonisation, and these processes necessarily question both the ideologies of both Deep and of
Social Ecology. As argued above, harmonisation is by no means the
nectiQJVRFLHW\DQGQDWXUH+LVDUJXPHQWWKDWOLWHUDWXUH>@KDVDPRUHSUDJPDWLF
FDSDFLW\ WR LQIRUP FULWLTXH HYHQ VKDSH VROXWLRQV FDQ be directly linked to
=DSIV PRGHO RI FXOWXUDO HFRORJ\ DQG $WWULGJHV FRQFHSW RI WKH VLQJXODULW\ RI
literature.
VLPSOHU that is, more utopian and thus more escapist process. Nor
LVLWDVROXWLRQInstead, harmonisation refers to the dialogical potential of fiction that calls for a closer look at the different layers of a
narrative. It is structural rather than strictly semantic. This is why it
will not suffice to simply detect traces of ecological thought in works
of literature (cf. Barker 2010: 17), but is necessary to outline methods
of a literary close reading that take the functioning of a text into focus
just as they keep WUDFNRIWKHWH[WVHFRORJLFDOFRQWH[W
John Parham has demonstrated a comparable approach in his study
of the works of Victorian poet Gerard Manley Hopkins. Parham argues for the aural quality3DUKDP of poetry ZKLFKRIIHUV
a mode of writing juxtaposed to other descriptive, representational
or rhetorical modes all of which attempt to enframe nature (38).
Just as (Victorian) poetry can offer an aural quality, I maintain that
postcolonial novels have a similar potential, namely a dialogical quality by virtue of which they succeed in their depiction and emplotment
of multiple truths and complex relational realities. This is far from
those forms of ecocriticism influenced by deep-ecological tendencies
that praise radical ecocentrism in literary fiction. On the contrary, a
GLDORJLFDOXQGHUVWDQGLQJHQDEOHVDQDO\VHVWKDWIRFXVRQWKHWH[WV literary aspects from narrative strategies to intertextuality, generic
motifs and modes of emplotment to follow, in Michael J. McDowHOOV ZRUGV WKe Bakhtinian road to ecological insight (1996: 371)
Human presence is not relinquished in this process, but it is reconceptualised in connection to its environment. Imagining this connection is
the crucial challenge.
Finally, and by taking into account these complexities, I will address what Dominic Head (1998) has described as the (im)possibility
of ecocriticism. In his work, Head also elaborates on the conflict
between postcolonial and ecocritical epistemology and different ways
of dealing with the form of fiction. Ecocritical theory, he argues, conVLVWV RI D SDUDGR[LFDO FRPELQDWLRQ RI GHFHQWULQJ DQG recentring
EHFDXVHGLVUHJDUGLQJLWVLPSHWXVWRZDUGVWKHZRUOGLWLVSUHGLFDWHG
on a typically postmodern deprivileging of the human subject (Head
2008: 235, emphasis orig.). Head convincingly argues that the novel
needs to be theoretically incorporated into the critical field by means
of an adequate theoretical model: LIHFRFULWLFLVPLVWRUHDOL]HLWVIXOO
potential, it will need to find a way of appropriating novelistic form
(236). This is the ultimate objective of EnvironMentality: while on the
one hand, both human and environmental aspects in fiction merge and
84
can be accounted for in terms of an encounter with alterity, on the

other hand, the very mode of novelistic discourse its intertextuality
and dialogicity engender a sense of thorough interconnectedness.
$V PHQWLRQHG DERYH +HDG DOVR GLVFXVVHV %XHOOV WHUPLQRORJ\ RI
WKHHQYLURQPHQWDOWH[WDQGKHQRWHVWKDW
[o]ne can think of very few novels in which [the principles Buell devised for an
HQYLURQPHQWDOO\ RULHQWHG ZRUN DUH@ VXVWDLQHG WKURXJKRXW DQG WKH ORJLF RI WKLV
UHTXLUHPHQWPD\FRQWUDGLFWWKHZD\LQZKLFKWKHQRYHOVUROHDVDVRFLDOPHGLXP
is usually articulated. (Head 2008: 237)
HHDGIRFXVHVRQ%XHOOVSUREOHPDWLFUHOLDQFHRQUHDOLW\DQGPLPHVLV
DQGKHFRXQWHUV%XHOOVSUHIHUHQFHIRUQDWXUHZULWLQJE\FODLPLQJWKDW
WKH PRUH VHOI-conscious and artificial the text is, the more effort is
UHTXLUHGLQLWVLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ (238). He also points to the role of interSUHWDWLRQ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI UHDGLQJ UHDOLW\ DQG , DJUHH WKDW DV WKH
involvement with the reality of the reader will be more challenging,
XOWLPDWHO\ WKH HIIHFW RQ WKH UHDGHUV LPDJLQDWLRQ LV OLNHO\ WR EH
greater. Head refers WR5LFXUVPRGHORIPLPHVLV, which I will also
focus on below, and uses it as a starting point for a hermeneutic description of such engagements with reality.
Within such a conception, human consciousness and a focus on
human perception as pivotal for tKHQRYHOQHHGQRWEHVHHQDVLQGLFHV
of an unregenerated anthropomorphism, but rather a literary route for
FKDQJLQJFRQVFLRXVQHVV (238). I will show in the following chapters
that the novel is an ever-FKDQJLQJDWWHPSWWRFRPHWRWHUPVZLWKUHDlLW\ DQG this function lends itself to being applied in the context of
SRVWFRORQLDOHFRFULWLFLVPLQVWHDGRIFRQILQLQJLWVHOIWRDQXQUHDOL]HG
utopia (240), postcolonial-ecocritical literature and theory need to be
conceptualised in terms of a hermeneutic project whose aim is an
acute awareness of alterity. This alterity concerns both the elusiveness
of nature and the complexities of different realities. Literary interpretation will have to answer the question of how nature is established
discursively and aesthetically, and what such a representation means
ZLWKUHJDUGWRDQLQWHUHVWLQUHDOLW\%ut it will also have to address
the question of the individual reading praxis not as political activism
but rather as a process of trying to understand otherness through the
experience of reading. Not unlike 6SLYDNV Can the Subaltern
6SHDN"WKHTXHVWLRQ&DQQature sSHDN"ZLOOXOWLPDWHO\KDYHWREH
answered in the negative, but it is within literature that human ideas
about an imaginary dialogue can be expressed. The fact that the voice
JLYHQWRQDWXUHZLOOEHWKHUHDGHUVRZQWKHUHIRUHFDOOVIRUDWKRXJKtIXOUHIOHFWLRQRQWKHOLWHUDU\WH[WDQGRQRQHVRZQKHUPHQHXWLFVLWXation.
SiQFHDOOQDWXUDOWH[WVPXVWHYHQWXDOO\EHXQGHUVWRRGDVXQQDWXUDO
(just as postcolonial texts are frequently KDUGO\ VXEDOWHUQ LW LV E\
virtue of narration and narrative voice that these texts establish a possible bridge over these gaps. Taking the example of animal narratives,
Martha Nussbaum claims that
[a]lthough we inevitably lack first-person reports in the animal case, we can come
as close to that as possible by focussing on a detailed narrative account of the
emotions of particular animals, made by the observer who has unusual empathy
and unusual awareness of the specific capacities of the animals in questions.
(Nussbaum 2001: 92)
Within literature, such processes are made possible to a special extent

because of its fictionality, which ultimately makes the ecocriticalpostcolonial praxis a reading praxis. This does not mean that political
or environmentalist activism must be forsaken altogether, but in the
context of literary studies, it is crucial to understand that
to achieve connection to and with nature and yet uphold the postmodern mantra
that one cannot jump the culture/nature gap, the artist must produce a selfreflexive text that reveals itself to be an artefact, not a self-disclosure of nature.
(Gras 2010: 4)
For that task, theoretical positions from the field of postcolonial studies and from ecocriticism may well complement each other. In other
ZRUGVWKHTXHVWLRQRISRVWFRORQLDOHFRFULWLFLVPVKRXOGEH,ISK\Vical nature is always culturally mediated, does it not matter how this is
GRQH" (5). For the present study, this means that cultural mediation is
not understood as something that leads away from nature and human
engagement with it on ethical and practical levels; instead, these ways
of mediation are seen as an important cultural practice of coming to
terms with our environment. By turning a narrative mediation of nature and reality into an event of fiction, literature engenders an experience of alterity that is necessary for a literary harmonisation of existing aporias. Thus, the specific processes and strategies of narrative
production are in need of closer analysis.
4. A Good Oosc of Formalism?

Reading The Hungry Tide
In thc following chaptcrs, 1 want to discuss thc hcuristic valuc of a
focus on namnivc stratcgics and the conccpt of a 'dccp structurc' or
texts in the context of henneneutic interprehltion and (pOstcolonial)
ecocrllicisrn. The evcnt of EmlircmMentali~)'. comparable 10 Altridge's

notion of thc cft(:ctivcncss of a Jitcrary tcxt, will OC dcscrib(..-d as a
rcsult of the interplay o f fOnnal aspects and the tcxt as a wholc. But
wh~ll is a tcxt 'as a. whole"! One ofthe tasks of this cha.ptcr is to spell
out what this notion compriscs. Ullimatcly. thc chaptcr will locatc thc
cvent of liction in the intcrplay of textual strucwrcs, thc various rcad-
erly responses thesc strucl\lres cvoke. their general embcddedness in a

s pecific iJuerpretive communily, and the conOie1s arising from Ibis
inlerplay, which from a benneneutic.al aog.le engender rneaning. By
narra1ively harmonising 1he various c.onfli cts 1hey de-a l wilh, or by
staging the tensions they are concemed w ith. literary 1cxts permit uew
experiences and perspectives. Thus, the effcctiveness o f literature and
the henneneulics of EnvironMenta/i~v rely on processes of maldng
sense oftextual fom1 in the context of ones natural and culrural environme.nt. These pmcesses concern the- always dialogic discourse of
literanLre, the emplotment of dichotomies into a coherent narrative
whole-. and, thus, lhe me-a ns by which the deep and the sul'face-stnJctul'e o f 1he text c1eate meaning.
T he- notion of a text's deep s tmcture is grounded on stmcturalisl
concepts as proposed by Algirdas G reimas, Jurij Lotman and Tzvetan
Todorov. They have argued that narrative texts contain sets o f binar)'
oppositions that are~ in the coursc of narrative discourse, translatcd
into the textual surface stmcture. According to structuralist notions,
human thinking is stmctured around such binaty oppos itions,
and s tnrcturalism mainta.ins tha.t translating these binaries into narra
tivcs constitutcs an 'acting out' of anta.eonisric positions ;md thus
88
harmonises these positions.1 Is there a way, then, to connect this narrative harmonisation described by the structuralists with the harmonisation I am looking for with regard to EnvironMentality? Would this be
DQHFRFULWLFDOVSHFLILFDWLRQRIZKDW$WWULGJHFDOOVHIIHFWLYHQHVVWKDW
LVWKHFRPLQJLQWREHLQJRIWKHZKROO\QHZ (2004b: 24) that opens
up new ways of thinking and feeling? Clearly, the experience of nature, or of RQHV environment, is fundamental to our making sense of
the world, particularly in the context of the imaginative crisis I described above. A formalist-structuralist focus on narrative discourse
and narrative grammar therefore seems well capable of explaining
how the representation of nature is connected to human systems of
meaning, and how, sensu Zapf, the harmonising function of literature
relates to the harmonising aspects of narrativisation.
Given that the cultural-ecological idea of harmonisation can be
discussed in terms of formalist-structuralist stances of narrative harmonisation, it is the literary discourse WKHKRZRIQDUUDWLYHPHGLation that needs to be understood as a crucial element of EnvironMentality. Attridge claims that the effectiveness of narrative form is
FORVHO\FRQQHFWHGWRWKHSKHQRPHQRQRIOLWHUDU\VLQJXODULW\DQG, as
stated above, he maintains that it is this singularity that distinguishes
literary texts from other forms of writing. At the same time, however,
he points to the problematic VWDWXVRIWKHQRWLRQRIIRUP and asserts
that
[u]nless we can rescue literary discourse from [the opposition of form and content], form will continue to be treated as something of an embarrassment to be encountered, and if possible evaded, on the way to a consideration of semantic, and
thus historical, political and ideological, concerns. (Attridge 2004b: 108)
However, if the effectiveness of literature in the postcolonialecocritical context is related to its harmonising function, its singularity
1
,Q KLV QDUUDWLYH JUDPPDU *UHLPDV FDOOV WKLV DFWLQJ RXW mise en branle 6HH
Greimas (1970: 164; see also Greimas 1987). See also Lotman 1977; Todorov
1977. Jens Martin Gurr argues for the topicality of these notions with regard to a
history of literary functions and maintains that studying the narrative ways of
dealing with the binaries identified by the structuralists can fulfill a function of
cultural diagnosis. In a lucidly argued essay, KH VKRZV KRZ QDUUDWLYH>V@ PD\
partly dissolve paradigmDWLFRSSRVLWLRQVE\>@WHPSRUDOL]LQJWKHPE\SURMHFWing them into a narrative sequence (Gurr 2012: n.p.). Tellingly, one of the examSOHVLQKLVHVVD\LV*KRVKVThe Hungry Tide, and I want to emphasise the significance of these notions with regard to (postcolonial) ecocriticism in this chapter.
A Good Dose of Formalism?
89
would rely on the formal means of narrativisation and negotiation of

the ecocritical aporias of anthropocentric versus ecocentric thinking,
the problematic role of science, and the questions of ethics arising
from these issues. Thus, the gap between semantics and form vanishes
in the moment of narrative harmonisation. Harmonisation, I stress it
again, is by no means to be understood as a smoothing of tensions but,
on the contrary, as a means of emplotment and narrative acting-out.2
7R rescue literary discourse and to transcend the opposition of
form and content are crucial objectives of a reading practice in terms
of EnvironMentality. If, moreover, narratives were a means of engagLQJ ZLWK UHDOLW\ WKH PHDQLQJ RI UHDOLW\ would be negotiated in the
making sense of the narrative as an aesthetic discourse. It is with regard to these processes of creating and advancing meaning that ecocriticism might be able to draw attention to the potential of literary
texts. That is to say, fiction must be read with regard to both literary
HQFRXQWHUVZLWKUHDOLW\DQGWRthe literary means of emplotting such
encounters.
Criticism has identified the literary texts that I will read in the folORZLQJ FKDSWHUV DV HQYLURQPHQWDO WH[WV DOWKRXJK GHILQLWLRQV RI WKe
term vary), but little has been said about the specific formal properties
by means of which these texts can be identified as environmentally
HIIHFWLYH Rather, the focus has been on specific environmental
metaphors and concepts such as cosmopolitan or ecocentric notions.
%XWLIWKHVHWH[WVDUHWREHXQGHUVWRRGDVHIIHFWLYHEHFDXVHWKH\Hxpress a singularity of meaning, a closer analysis of their formal composition must underscore and complement the critical appraisal. I will
therefore show how their effectiveness is constituted by their literary
form and the readerly making sense of this form, the interplay of
which informs the hermeneutics of EnvironMentality.
Following Attridge, I understand the formal elements of a text to
EH WKH NH\ IRU D GHVFULSWLRQ RI OLWHUDWXUHV VSHFLILF HWKLFDO SRWHQWLDO
EHFDXVH >I@RUPDO LQQRYDWLRQ >@ LV D WHVWLQJ RI WKH RSHUDWLons of
meaning, and it is therefore a kind of ethical experimentation (Attridge 2004b: 131). , ZLOO WKXV FRQVLGHU WKH HQYLURQPHQWDO WH[WV
below with a focus on how they test the operations of meaning, and I
will point to the fact that much of the critical work done on these texts
suffers from certain shortcomings in this respect. Like Mller, who
2
7KHQRWLRQRIHPSORWPHQWis grounded RQWKHZRUNRI3DXO5LFXUDQG+D\GHQ

White and will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.2.
90
KDV DUJXHG IRU DQ HFRFULWLFDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH OLWHUDU\ WH[WV DV D
ZKROH,DPLQWHUHVWHGLQWKHDHVWKHWLFIRUFHRIQDUUDWLYHHPSORWPHQWV
not in isolated motifs and metaphors. I aim to show how readings
based on the notion of the literary event as a moment of harmonisation
can grapple with various concepts (postcolonial) ecocriticism might
find necessary to consider: from the nature/culture-divide and the
question of the animal to postnatural environments and the more abstract notions of posthumanism.
In doing so, some important and complex questions must be addressed: how exactly can narrative form be connected with any ecoORJLFDO RU HWKLFDO RULHQWDWLRQ" +RZ IXUWKHUPRUH GRHV IRUP UHIOHFW
the problem of reality and mimesis, especially since, following TimoWK\ &ODUN %XHOOV DUJXPHQW >IRU DQ HFRFULWLFDO LQWHUHVW LQ PLPHWLF
texts] was also directed against tendencies towards IRUPDOLVP LQ
literary theory (Clark 2011: 47)? And how could such a focus, ultimately, be brought to bear on the idea of harmonising the conflicts
and aporias of ecocritical and postcolonial approaches?
My dealing with these questions will be determined, first of all, by
the conviction that it is reasonable to theorise through literature rather
than to describe theoretical a priori notions, which then have to be
applied to the texts in a second step. In that, I follow Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan who in Narrative Fiction (2002) PDGHWKHVXJJHVWLRQto
XVH QRYHOVDVLQ VRPH VHQVH WKH VRXUFHRI WKHRU\ This does
not mean, however, that I argue IRU XQWKHRUHWLFDO UHDGLQJV and I
agree with Christoph %RGHWKDWDWH[WFDQRQO\DQVZHUWKHTXHVWLons
WKDW KDYH EHHQ SXW WR LW (1996: 89) nevertheless, it is in literary
theory that I will be looking for those questions rather than in extraliterary discourses. My readings will therefore not be framed by ecology or environmental philosophy, but by theories of literary form and
narrative discourse. With specific regard to reading literary form ecoFULWLFDOO\-RVHSK0HHNHUPDLQWDLQVWKDW>O@LWHUDU\IRUPPXVWEHUHconciled if possible with the forms and structures of nature [...], for
both are related to human perceptions of beauty and balance (1997:
7). 0HHNHUVIRFXVKRZHYHULVRQIRUPVDQGVWUXFWXUHVRIQDWXUHDV
they are defined by scientific ecologists (7). While Meeker seems to
be looking for formal representations of what he has identified as ecological phenomena, to understand literature as an aesthetic discourse
demands a treatment in terms of literary theory rather than a restriction to scientific forms of meaning (as regards ecology and other concepts ecocriticism embraces). I have tried to show in the chapters
91
above that it is time for ecocritics as literary scholars to move away

from the idea of scientific ecology and orient themselves towards the
aesthetic potential of literature instead. I will thus take literally PhilOLSVUHPDUNWKDWHFRFULWLFLVPQHHGVWREHJLYHQDVWURQJGRVHRIIRrmalism (2003: 168), and I will begin my readings by reviewing the
potential merit of various text-centred approaches for (postcolonial)
ecocriticism.
Undoubtedly, the Formalists had an interest in the meaning of literary form, and many formalist notions, particularly the idea of defamiliarisation, sound like promising concepts for a form-oriented
ecocritical study. However, a simple adaptation of formalist stances is
SUREOHPDWLF DV $WWULGJH SRLQWV RXW WKH )RUPDOLVWV IDLWK WKDW ZKDW
shines through by virtue of these devices [creating defamiliarising
effects] iV UHDOLW\ FDQQRW EH MXVWLILHG (Attridge 2004b: 39). 3 The
problematic status of and stance towards reality is a familiar issue in
both postcolonial and environmental criticism, and it remains to be
seen whether EnvironMentality can resolve this impasse. Attridge
does not believe that fiction simply represents reality, and he proposes
thinking differently about the connection between fiction and the
UHDO,IROORZKLVOLQHRIDUJXPHQWVLQFHLWHOHJDQWO\UHFRQFLOHs postcolonial and ecocritical branches of thinking: Attridge states that fictional means of defamiliarisation render alterity thinkable. 7KH
RWKHUKHUHPDUNV
is not the real but rather a truth, a value, a feeling, a way of doing things, or some
complex combination of these, that has been historically occluded and whose
emergence or re-emergence is important for a particular time and place. (Attridge
2004b: 39)
7KXVRXUHQFRXQWHUVZLWKWKHUHDOLW\RIQDWXUHLQILFWLRQFDQQRW
EH GHWHUPLQHG E\ SRVLWLYLVW NQRZOHGJH DERXW UHDO QDWXUH RXW WKHUH
but they are connected to the truth (or the value, feeling, praxis or a
3
Unfortunately, Attridge does not clarify which Formalist he is talking about.

James Wood, for instance, comes to a very different conclusion when he argues
that according to fRUPDOLVWQRWLRQVILFWLRQGRHVQRWUHIHUWRUHDOLW\>EXW@LVDVHOIclosed maFKLQH Q). I think that both might be referring to Viktor
NORYVN\, ZKRLQ$UWDV'HYLFHFODLPVWKDW>W@KHSXUSRVHRIWKHLPDJH LVQRW
to draw our understanding closer to that which this image stands for, but rather to
allow us to perceive tKH REMHFW LQ D VSHFLDO ZD\ klovsky 2009: 10). Whether
or not this preoccupDWLRQ ZLWK VHHLQJ WKLQJV in a special way has to do with
reality will be discussed in Chapters 10 and 11 of this study.
92
combination of all these things) of nature.4 In thinking of nature as

ERWK DQ LQVWDQFH RI DOWHULW\ DQG D UHDO H[SHULHQFH LW LV SRVVLEOH WR
understand the literary staging of the environment as what Iser calls
the process during which a given world is to be transcoded, a nongiven world is to be conceived, and the reshuffled worlds are to be
PDGHDFFHVVLEOHWRWKHUHDGHUVH[SHULHQFH,VHU. Jens Martin
*XUUWKHUHIRUHFODLPVWKDW>K@RZHYHUILFWLWLRXVDWH[WLVLWFDQQRWKHOS
being in some sense mimetic (2012: n.p.). However, a closer analysis
of literary forms of mimesis seems pertinent: the mimesis Gurr refers
WRVHHPVWREHGLIIHUHQWIURP%XHOOVFRQFHSWRIUHDOLVWLFPLPHVLVEXW
DOVRIURP*pUDUG*HQHWWHVQRWLRQRIPLmesis, for Genette claims all
literary prose texts to be diegetic (see Genette 1980: 165)0LPHVLV
it seems, is a far less definite concept than narratological, postcolonial
and ecocritical discussions suggest (see Potolsky 2006). I believe that
(postcolonial) ecocriticism in the context of EnvironMentality can
engage witKDQGEHQHILWIURPLWVDPELJXLWLHVDQGWKXVDGGUHVVUHDOLW\
LQUHDGLQJVWKDWDUHDOHUWWRWKHIRUPDOVWDJLQJRIWKHUHDO
That (postcolonial) ecocriticism to date has often neglected the exploration of form seems strange from another angle too. Despite the
tensions described above, theories concerned with literary form from
formalism to contemporary, postclassical narratology work with a
terminology that at first sight readily lends itself to an application in
ecocriticism because they IUHTXHQWO\UHIHUWRQRWLRQVRIRUJDQLc form
and other concepts related to nature. It is indeed remarkable that formalist-structuralist approaches, the New Criticism and narratological
concepts have all relied on such organic metaphors. Since the times of
Enlightenment, organicism has provided the metaphor for balanced
and artful aesthetic works and claims to artistic autonomy; and despite
numerous changes in the semantics of the concept, it clearly remains
relevant (see Geiger 2005; Loesberg 2005: 4-5 and 17-26). And almost all of the twentieth-century text-centred approaches were initially grounded on this morphological research tradition (Herman
2005: 23). The formalist-structuralist focus on deep-structural elements (as in the work of Vladimir Propp, for instance) brought New
Criticism to rediscovering +HQU\-DPHVPHWDSKRURIOLWHUDWXUHDVDQ
4
,QVWULFWO\OLWHUDU\WHUPVWKLVLGHDFDQEHGLUHFWO\FRQQHFWHGWR:RRGVVXJJHVWLRQ
WRUHSODFHWKHDOZD\VSUREOHPDWLFZRUGUHDOLVPZLWKWKHPXFKPRUHSUREOHPDWic wRUGWUXWK, discussed in Chapters 2.2, 10 and 11 of this study. See J. Wood
(2009: 180).
93
RUJDQLFZKROH. 7KULYLQJRQWKHLGHDWKDWWKHnovel is a living thing

(quoted in Miller 1972: 36), WKHGRFWULQHRIRUJDQLFXQLW\ (Herman
2005: 27) that had been proclaimed by Percy Lubbock was revived as
a metaphorical guideline for narrative theory. Wholeness and organicism, however, were not discussed in any ecological sense, even
though the respective theories are indebted to ideas of evolution and
ecolog\DQGZHUHLQLWLDOO\JURXQGHGRQWKH.DQWLDQ$UJXPHQWIURP
'HVLJQVHH/RHVEHUJ-73). Keeping this in mind in the following readings, I will show how some of the ecological concepts
ecocriticism works with are actually informed by text-centred rather
than ecocentric notions.
While text-centred theories have occasionally concentrated on an
ostensibly objective description of narratives, they have likewise
sharpened the perception of the what in ecocriticism would be referred to as ecological functions and effects of narratives: Wayne C.
%RRWK DQG KLV ZRUN RQ WKH HWKLFV RI IRUPV LV DQ REYLRXV H[DPSOH
(see Booth 1988 and Booth 1994)7H[W-FHQWUHGGRHVQRWQHFHVVDULO\
imply that texts are regarded as historically transcendent and purely
aesthetLF(VSHFLDOO\LQWKHZDNHRIDSRVWFODVVLFalWXUQLQQDUUDWRlogy, these worn-out DFFXVDWLRQV DJDLQVW QDUUDWRORJ\ ZHUH PHW E\
VFKRODUVZKRGHFLGHGWRLQFRUSRUDWHFXUUHQWGHYHORSPHQWVLQFULWLFDO
theory (Fludernik 2000: 84; 87), thus combining formal analyses
with critical remarks on ethics and moral issues. The same can be
found in US American theoretical debate where this development is
GLVFXVVHG XQGHU WKH PRQLNHU RI 1HZ )RUPDOLVP VHH /HYLQVRQ
2007). Although nDWXUH FRXOG in this context be seen as a possible
new focus in narratology (after gender, class and ethnicity), its prevalence as a descriptive metaphor therefore remains remarkable especially with regard to questions of the narrative functions of texts,
which can be described, with Booth DVZHOODV=DSIDVHWKLFDO
As I argue for a form-oriented reading of environmental literature,
I am attentive to this terminological reliance on images of organicism,
naturalness and evolution in literary theory. Does it highlight a connection to the extratextual world that is worthy of closer consideraWLRQ" /DZUHQFH %XHOOV FRPSODLQW WKDW fictional OLWHUDWXUH OHDG>V@ XV
DZD\ IURP WKH SK\VLFDO ZRUOG (Buell 1995: 10-1) would then not
even be true for narrative theory, for the connection between organicism and literary theory points to the inextricability of aesthetic concepts and the philosophical or ethical engagement with reality (see
Loesberg 2005: 5; 18). The terminology of literary theory might be a
94
useful indicator of a connection between ethics and artistic autonomy

that requires theoretical specification.
Critical literary theory often rejects a text-centred orientation because of untenable ideas of the autonomous artwork, or the Kantian
idea RI DHVWKHWLF DUW DV D IRUP RI purposiveness without purpose.
Taking this subtext into account, Attridge argues for a fRFXVRQIRUP
without formalism (Attridge 2004b: 119) and thus for an approach
WKDW IXOO\ DFNQRZOHGJHV WKH SUREOHPDWLF VWDWXV RI DOO FODLPV WR XQiversality, self-presence, and historicaO WUDQVFHQGHQFH (13). Postcolonial criticism has always attempted to get away from universality and
other such figures of thought, and by merging this critical stance with
the notions of environmental criticism, postcolonial ecocriticism has
at its disposal the means to address head-on the conflict between literary form and the contingency of cultural expression. Postcolonial ecocriticism is constantly aware of the problematic status of any claims to
universality and transcendence, and with this caveat, a hermeneutic
reading of form seems possible. As argued in Chapter 3, this does of
course not mean that postcolonial ecocriticism is able to dissolve the
tensions inherent in its theoretical design (a similar point has been
made by Chakrabarty 2000 and 2009).
$ IRFXV RQ form without formalism must engage with another
tension, however. A strict focus on textual form relies on a problemDWLFVHSDUDWLRQRIIRUPDQGFRQWHQWWKDWWKLVVWXG\ZLOOHYHQWXDOO\
call into question. Attridge considers this aspect of the organic terminology of form-oriented analyses, too, when he points to the fact that
the
still-SRWHQWWUDGLWLRQRIRUJDQLFIRUPZKLFKZKLOHDUJXLQJIRUWKHSRVVLELOLW\RI
a perfect fit between form and content that renders them inseparable, nevertheless
relies on a prior theoretical separation. (Attridge 2004b: 108)
,QVWHDG RI ORRNLQJ IRU DQ\ perfect fit of form and content, and instead of thus making claims about the artistic autonomy or quality of
OLWHUDWXUH,DPLQWHUHVWHGLQWKHVSHFLILcity and singularity of literary
writing as it manifests itself through the deployment of form (13).
That means that if form and content are separated for heuristic reasons, it is in the act of interpretation that their interrelation is acknowledged as it constitutes literary meaning. This is the event of
fiction.
95
Gurr has convincingly argued for a dialectical relationship of formal elements and aspects of content, and he has shown how narrative
form enables emplotments, which can be read as a means of structuring human experience:
A close narrative engagement with an ecosystem may structure the text in such a
way that fundamental topographical features of an ecosystem are structurally replicated in the surface structure of the text. (Gurr 2010a: 73-4)
,ZLOORXWOLQHWKLVLGHDZLWKUHJDUGWRWKHVWUXFWXUHRI$PLWDY*KRVKV
2004 novel The Hungry Tide, but I will also go beyond the claim that
WRSRJUDSKLFDOIHDWXUHVDUHUHSOLFDWHGE\SODFLQJWKHLGHDRIDUHSOiFDWLYHVXUIDFHVWUXFWXUHLQWKHFRQWH[WRIa larger interpretive process
that negotiates narrative deep structure and modes of emplotment.
Therefore, I will read The Hungry Tide firstly with regard to such
structural connections and then engage with a discussion of how they
can be interpreted with regard to the question of literary harmonisation
and the hermeneutics of EnvironMentality.
4.1 Focalisation and Narrative Deep Structure

In The Song of the Earth, Jonathan Bate maintains that
[i]t would be quixotic to suppose that a work of literary criticism might be an appropriate place in which to spell out a practical programme for better environmental management. That is why ecopoetics should begin not as a set of assumptions or proposals about particular environmental issues, but as a way of reflecting
upon what it might mean to dwell with the earth. (2000: 266)
In a discussion of +HLGHJJHUVQRWLRQVRISUHVHQFHDQGGZHOOLQJ, Bate

engages with HeideggerV claims that technology is one of the distinctly human ways of existence and that poetry is another, equally
important one (by means of which reconciliation with nature is made
possible). Following this line of thinking, Bate argues for an ecocenWULFIRUPRISRHWLFGZHOOLQJWKDWSRHWU\LVDEOHWRHQYLVLRQ (see Bate
2000: 282; see also Parham 2008: 28 and 2010: 35-8; Rigby 2004).
7DNLQJ%DWHVLGHDVRIDKDUPRQLRXVGZHOOLQJ-in-the-HDUWKIRVWHUHG
by poetry and concerned with local places rather than with the uncomfortable notion of uncultivated space, John Parham critically asks,
96

What happensIRUH[DPSOHWRWKLVQRWLRQRIDPLQLPDOLVWGZHOOLQJLQWKHFRntext of a tsunami or in the aftermath of occupation or colonialism where human
mapping and reorganisation of the land is often a social necessity? (Parham 2008:
29)
This question might have served as a mere rhetorical device in

3DUKDPV FULWLTXH RI +HLGHJJHULDQ WKLQNLQJ ZLWKLQ %DWHV ZRUN5 but
for a study in postcolonial ecocriticism, it is indeed pivotal. The Hungry Tide6 is concerned with the effects of a devastating storm and its
effects are eerily close to what Parham writes about the FRQWH[WRID
WVXQDPL. Alexa Weik has called the book DOPRVWDSUHGLFWLRQRIWKH
2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia, and she claims that the images of this
catastrophe and the images of devastation presenteGLQ*KRVKVQRYHO
EOHnd both horribly and seamlessly (2006-7: 129). Apart from these
SDUDOOHOV*KRVKVQDUUDWLYHLQFRPSOH[ZD\VLQWHUPLQJOHs with and is
connected to effects of linguistic representation in general and issues
of postcolonialism in particular. Thus, specifically sociopolitical questions of environmental entitlement become a constant discursive presence in the text as well. This makes The Hungry Tide a perfect starting
point from which to address the aporias of ecocentric versus anthropocentric thinking, the role of science and (other) discourses in postcolonial ecocriticism, and the event of fiction.
The Hungry Tide, on one level, narrates the lives of the native people living in the Indian region of the Sundarbans as well as the experiences of two visitors to this region, Piya and Kanai. Piya is a marine
biologist and visits the area because she wants to study the river dolphins of the Ganges delta. Kanai is visiting his aunt who has informed
him of a diary his deceased uncle has passed on to him and which
Kanai is supposed to receive in person. The two of them meet on the
train to the Sundarbans. Piya, who is unfamiliar with Indian social
codes and particularities, gets into difficulties with the local police but
is saved by Fokir, a local and illiterate fisherman, who eventually
brings her to Lusibari, the village where Kanai is also staying. A complicated, triangular relationship evolves, which ends in a terrible storm
in which Fokir dies but saves PL\DVOLIHZKLOH.DQDLXQDEOHWRJHWWR
5
A rhetorical device that has, however, been lucidly elaborated upon in the form
RI DUJXPHQW DQG HYHQWXDOO\ D SURPLVLQJ DSSURDFK RI KXPDQLVW HFRFULWLFLVP
See Parham 2010, 23; 29; 42-52. For a discussion of Heideggerian influences in
ecocriticism, see Garrard 1998 and 2010b.
In the following referred to as THT.
97
WKHPORVHVKLVGLDU\DQGWKXVKLVXQFOHVZULWWHQOHJDF\LQWKHURDring flood.
On another level, the novel stages the Sundarbans as a natural
enviURQPHQW 6XQGDUEDQV PHDQV beautiful forest in English, and it
constitutes WKHZRUOGVODUJHVWDUHDRIPDQJURYHIRUHVWDQGPDUVKODQG
If known to people in the West at all, however, the Sundarbans are
QRWHG DV WKH ODVW UHIXJH Rf the Bengal tiger (see Huggan & Tiffin
2010: 186; see also Jalais 2005), which makes them a desirable target
for Western preservationist organisations, including NGOs such as the
World Wildlife Fund (WWF). With the particularity of the environment and its appeal for Western preservationist efforts, one easily
forgets that the Sundarbans are an area of human settlement as well.
By connecting a narrative about the environment and issues of postcolonial politics, however, the novel complicates any clear nature/culture distinction, mixing the idea of wilderness preservation
(the Sundarbans as a tiger reserve) and the idea of human settlement
(the Sundarbans as a place for mostly poor Indian peasants and Bangladesh refugees).
The conflict between settlers and the protected tiger population is
reinforced by both Western NGOs and the Indian government. The socalled Morichjhapi incident of 1979, which is also represented in the
novel, marks the bloodiest episode of this conflict to date (see Jalais
2005; Mukherjee 2010: 111). The Indian government had banned
migratory movement and settlement in Morichjhapi in 1979, allegedly
LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK HQYLURQPHQWDO ODZ DQG WKH RUGHUV RI 3URMHFW
7LJHU DQG WKH )RUHVW 3UHVHUYDWLRQ $FW *UHDW QXPEHUV RI %DQJOadeshi refugees who already lived in Morichjhapi were detained and
eventually raped and/or killed by paramilitary forces estimated
numbers exceed fifteen thousands. By narrating this as well as other
conflicts, the novel constantly engages with the antagonism between
concerns for the nonhuman environment and the people living in this
environment. In doing so, it demonstrates the clash of Social and Deep
Ecology. This aporia therefore spurs the hermeneutics of EnvironMentality, and my reading will look for the literary power and effectiveness in negotiating this impasse.
Weik argues that the dichotomy of Deep and Social Ecology (that
is, the conflict between a concern for the environment and its nonhuman population on the one hand and a concern for the settlers as
well a criticism of the political enmeshment that comes along with
preservationist politics in the Sundarbans on the other) is a false one:
98
$Q HFRORJLFDO FRQVFLHQFH WKDW >@ VLPSO\ DFFHSWV D GLFKRWRP\ Eetween human and animal welfare is, as environmental justice advocates have often pointed out, highly problematic (Weik 2006-7: 132).
It remains to be seen, therefore, how the novel engages with this problematic dichotomy on the level of its form. The tension of the dichotomy, I will argue, is not only described and exemplified within the
WH[W EXW LV VXFFHVVIXOO\ QHJRWLDWHG E\ WKH WH[WV QDUUDWLYH GLVFRXUVH
The text does so by different means and on different levels, some of
which will be discussed on the following pages.
In the larger context of EnvironMentality, it is remarkable that this
QDUUDWLYHLQIDFWWKHHQWLUHSORW [...] literally grows out of the fundamental characteristics of the landscape (Gurr 2010a: 70). The landscape not only represents a structural basis for the plot but is depicted
as an environmental-textual agency in itself since its changing form
significantly governs the form of the narrative. Indeed, the whole narrative is organised around the movement of the tide, with one section
FDOOHG(EEDQGWKHRWKHU)ORRGDQGZLWKDIRFDOLVDWLRQWKDWliterally
VZD\VEHWZHHQ3L\DDQG.DQDLDQGUHSUHVHQWDWLRQVRIODQGDQGZater (74-5)*XUUSRLQWVWRWKHIDFWWKDWHYHQWKHSURWDJRQLVWVDUHVXbordinated to the structuring principle of ebb and floodDQGWKDWKuman beings [in The Hungry Tide] function as an illustration of features
of the ecosystem rather than the other way round (74).7 By means of
its narrative design, The Hungry Tide emplots the tidal rhythm of the
ecosystem and at the same time narrates different human lives as attuned to this rhythm in different ways. Weik claims WKDWRQLWVEURDdest level, [The Hungry Tide] is a story about the Sundarbans themselves (Weik 2006-+RZHYHU,DUJXHWKDWLWLVQRWabout the
Sundarbans because they are part of the setting; rather, the formal
staging of the novel integrates the landscape into the narrative whole
and creates a sense of environmental agency in itself (a similar point is
made by Grewe-Volpp (2006), DQGERWKP\RZQDQG*XUUVIRFXVRQ
narrative strategies underline her argument).
The novel stDQGVDVDQRWDEOHH[DPSOHRIDwriting of wetlands
as William Howarth describes it. Howarth remarks on the importance
of space in narratives and focuses on the wetlands as a particular narrative challenge. He points to the fDFW WKDW >Z@KLOH WKH ZD\V WKDW
7
Accordingly, it is possible to connect Kanai with representations of land and Fokir

with representations of water, and to understand Piya to be torn between these
poles. I will comment on this constellation below and in Chapter 4.2.
99
places look, smell, and baffle have long intrigued writers, they are of
less apparent interest to critical readers (Howarth 1999: 512). A concern for spatiality bears some long overlooked influence on textual
composition, aVLVVKRZQLQ+RZDUWKVDFFRXQWRIQDUUDWLYHVIURPWKH
Early Modern Period up to today and, most importantly in this conWH[WLQKLVFRQWHQWLRQWKDW>Z@HFDQQRWHVVHQWLDOL]HZHWODQGVEHFDXVH
they are hybrid and multivalent [...]. In rhetorical terms they are not
syntax but parataxis (Howarth 1999: 520). This hybridity and multivalence can be shown to be a pivotal trope in The Hungry Tide. But
+RZDUWKVUHPDUNDOVRUHODWHVWRFRQFHSWVRIOLWHUDU\WKHRU\+LVFODLP
that the rhetoric of wetODQGVLVnot syntax but parataxis points to the
toolkit of structuralist interpretation and to the idea of narrative
grammar. It is with this focus that I now discuss the deep structure of
The Hungry Tide in more detail. By focussing on the structural composition of the novel, I will thus account for the emergence of EnvironMentality as an encounter with the world through narrative. This
encounter is possible because, in structuralist terms, narratives do not
simply transform concepts into pictures, into sensuous-concrete artefacts [...]; rather, relationships between sensuous-concrete units are
XVHGWRPDNHUHODWLRQVEHWZHHQDEVWUDFWXQLWVSUHVHQWDEOHLQWKHILUVW
place (Galles 1972: xxi; my translation). What does this mean in the
context of postcolonial-ecocritical readings of form?
The Sundarbans are described in The Hungry Tide DVWKHWUDLOLQJ
WKUHDGV RI ,QGLDVIDEULF WKHUDJJHG IULQJH RI KHU VDULWKH mFKRO WKDW
follows her, half-wetted by the sea (THT 6). Not only does this passage employ a remarkable sequence of cultural metaphors in order to
narrate the place, it is also directly connected to its cultural being-read
in terms of a merging of landscape mapping and the description of
clothing: the wetlands are described as homologous to human clothing. This homology of nature and culture, and of living in and reading
an environment, constitutes a starting point from which I want to explore a possible analogy between world and text. Such a narrative
analogy can indeed effect a harmonisation and, as will be shown, it
exemplifies how far formalist-structuralist methods can help to describe this form of harmonisation. The analogy of world and text is
staged by narrative strategies that underline the significance of the
specific environment. The idea that the environment structures the
narrative encourages readers to interpretively engage with the place
with which the novel is concerned. Moreover, it hints at the interconnection of environment and narrative engagement in terms of the
100
DQWKURSRORJLFDOLPSOLFDWLRQVRIVWDJLQJDVDPHDQVRIPDNLQJVHQVH
of reality (see Iser 1993: 79-86). Since through its narrative design,
The Hungry Tide stages place in close connection to the stories that
come from there and to meaning in general, the strategies of perspective and focalisation in particular suggest that nature be read as an
active force, an agent rather than a mere object. Instead of the passive
UROHDWWULEXWHGWRVHWWLQJLQPDQ\FULWLFDOZRUNVWKHUROHRIWKHQDWural environment is thus an active one that transcends the notion of a
mere setting.
The most remarkable and readily identifiable device consists of a
constant oscillation of focalisation. Kanai and Piya are the focalisers,
DQG IRU PRVW RI WKH WLPH WKH QDUUDWLYH PRRG LV DIIHFWHG E\ .DQDLV
DQG 3L\DV H[SHULHQFHV DQG WKHLU FRQVFLRXVQHVVHV ZLWK 3L\D EHLQJ D
female scientist, socialised in the USA and coming from the middle
class, and Kanai being a male translator, trained in the humanities,
living an upper-class Indian urban life). Thus, the environment is perceived through the eyes of two strangers, but, more importantly, by
means of focalisation, the narrative recreates the fundamental spatial
experience of the tidal rhythm of the Sundarbans. On the one hand,
this form of swaying focalisation re-enacts the tidal movement, which
is described as a crucial and ubiquitous local experience. However, the
narrativisation of the tidal movement also correlates with a female/marine biologist/Western and a male/philologist/Indian perspective. It seems that the whole narrative as such evolves from the tension
between these binary pairs of opposites.8
Staging the environment this way blurs any clear-cut boundary between nature and culture because by virtue of the environmental emplotment, the text presents both a narrative formed by natural rhythm
and LW VKRZV KRZ FXOWXUDO PRGHOV DQG FRQFHSWV VKDSH UHDOLWLHV and
the perception of the world (Gurr 2010a: 75). This both/and con8
By the same token, Gurr (2012) DUJXHV WKDW WKH WH[W OLWHUDOL]HV WKH QRWLRQ WKDW
narrative originates from the tension between binary opposites, and his examples
trace the binary oppositions doZQ WR QXPHURXV GHWDLOV >,@W LV KDUGO\ LQFLGHQWDO
that Piya is not doing research on fish or on land animals, but specifically on
dolphins, mammals living in water but breathing air, a species also embodying the
being caught between both. In a very literal sense, the dualism of land and water
is precisely what motivates the entire narrative, even in the disastrous storm which
occurs at the climax of the novel. This storm very directly grows out of the unique
climate developing in this area which is so fundamentally both land and water
(n.p.).
101
struction betrays the insufficiency of a strictly dichotomous view of

nature and culture. The novelVLQLWLDOFODLPWKDW>D@WQRPRPHQWFDQ
KXPDQ EHLQJV KDYH DQ\ GRXEW RI WKH WHUUDLQV KRVWLlity to their presHQFH (THT 8) is thus questioned by more complex both/and relationships that can be assessed in ecocritical terms.
It is important to understand that by establishing this net of analogies between text and world, the text fills the semantic space that an
XQPDUNHG QDUUDWLYH VWUDWHJ\ RI FKDQJLQJ IRFDOLVDWLRQ RSHQV XS
Thus, it turns the narrative design into a meaningful environmental
device: while multiperspective focalisation is common in narrative
fiction in general, in connection with the tidal movement, it becomes
an environmental trope. As such, the focalising technique constantly
TXHVWLRQV WKH WH[WV RZQ ELQDU\ ORJLF $W RQH SRLQW the dike of the
YLOODJH LV GHVFULEHG DV QRW MXVW the guarantor of human life on our
island; it is also our abacus and archive, our library of stories (THT
202). Nature stores texts; however, the text itself emplots nature too.
Shifts of focalisation are of course not HQYLURQPHQWDO as such, but
the semantic context allows for such an interpretation since the novel
stages the connection of narrative and environment via said analogies.
$V WKH QRYHOV GLYLVLRQ LQWR WZR SDUWV DOUHDG\ LQGLFDWHV WKH GXDOLVWLF
VWUXFWXUHLWLVLQWKH(EEVHFWLRQWKDWFKDUDFWHUVDQGVHWWLQJDUHODLG
EDUH DQG DFFRUGLQJO\ LQ WKH )ORRG VHFWLRQ ZKHUH FKDUDFWHUV DUH
eventually brought together, and where radical changes occur and the
status quo is dramatically changed (see Wlfle 2010). When, eventually, the devastating storm mixes the focalising perspectives and reVKDSHVWKHVSDWLDOUHDOLW\RIWKHVWRU\VHQYLURQPHQWDWWKHVDPHWLPH
it remains ambiguous whether this climax owes more to the climate of
the Sundarbans or to the tension between Piya and Fokir. By thus becoming a narrative device, the environment acquires a form of agency
not as an extracultural presence, however, but rather as a culturally
inscribed mediator: nature is represented as a narrator. This is because,
on the one hand, it is the natural environment that informs and governs the process of narration (as narration is bound to the ubiquitous
tidal rhythm). On the other hand, the tide as such is a form of metastructure of the whole novel, and this connection opens up possibilities of numerous analogous relationships that evolve around the dichotomy and eventual hybridisation of the nature/culture divide like
ripples in the very waters the novel seeks to narrate.
The natural environment is thus emplotted in a way that transcends
the boundaries of world or text towards a world-as-text. This percep-
102
tion is the basis of EnvironMentality. The ways in which the narrative

emplotment can be assessed and interpreted as the dominant literary
device in this particular novel, EXWDOVRPRUHJHQHUDOO\DVDYLWDOIRUP
of appropriating and refiguring the world in order to make sense of
OLYHG H[SHULHQFH (Gurr 2010a: 73), will therefore be discussed in
more detail in the following. As stated above, the general construction
of the narrative can be shown to spring from the dichotomous strucWXUHRI(EEDQG)ORRG: WKHWZRVWUDQGVRIWKHDFWLRQDUHWUHDWHGLQ
chapters alternating between the sub-plots, with focalization changing
EDFN DQG IRUWK EHWZHHQ 3L\D >@ DQG .DQDL (Gurr 2010a: 75). The
dualism underlying the narrative is so strong and remarkable that, as I
said above, it would indeed be difficult not to connect it to the idea of
the ever-returning ebbs and floods that shape the country just as much
DVWKHSHRSOHVVWRULHV6tatements such as: 7RKHDUWKLVVWRU\LVWRVHH
WKH ULYHU LQ D FHUWDLQ ZD\ (THT 6) must therefore immediately be
connected with the idea that in the Sundarbans,
[t]he currents are so powerful as to reshape the islands almost daily some days
the water tears away entire promontories and peninsulas; at other times it throws
up new shelves and sandbanks where there were none before. (7)
The narrativity of the environment is described just as factually as the

environmentality of the narrative.
By hybridising text and world, the notion of a world-as-text goes
DORQJ ZLWK D OHVVRQ HOHJDQWO\ VWDJHG LQ WKH QRYHO OLIH LV OLYHG LQ
transformation (225). That transformation is a substantial aspect of
the story of life is suggested by the storm, which changes the environment just as it dramatically changes the lives of the characters.
Thus, the storm becomes meaningfully connected to the fate of all life
LQWKH6XQGDUEDQVLQSDUWLFXODUEXWDOVRZLWKUHJDUGWROLYLQJZLWK
nature in general. In this context, it is remarkable that the lesson of
OLIHV WUDQVIRUPDWLYH FKDUDFWHU LV QDUUDWHG LQ QXPHURXV ZD\V WKXV
creating a dialogical echo on various levels of the story. The meaning
of intertextual and intratextual dialogues will be discussed in more
detail in the second part of this chapter. As far as the significance of
emplotting the natural environment in this way is concerned, it is important to note that if narratives provide a crucial means to structure
RXU H[SHULHQFH RI WKH ZRUOG DQG D PHDQV WR UH-configure our confused and at the limit mute temporal experience 5LFXU [L
103
then the narrativisation of the ever-transformative Sundarban ecosystem successfully augments the development of EnvironMentality.
Both the idea of a world-as-text and the idea of an evertransformative life find application in an ethical context: the transformative character of life is described as a vital balance of being, and
since the discursive level reflects this idea, it emplots the idea of a
postmodern ecology that is, an ecology that has let go of hopes for
climax states IRUWKHVDNHRIdiscordant harmoniesVHH%RWNLQ
and also Phillips 2003: 51; Reichholf 2008: 101). On a rational level,
we may still struggle with the implications of a nature that is bereft of
idealistic truths and, thus, has stopped making sense DVDPRGHOWKDW
would guide us (Lodge & Hamlin 2006: 7), but the novel stages a
form of harmony that successfully incorporates diverging voices and
disasters alike.
Part of the success of such a staging of discordant harmony relies
on textual gaps and tensions that must be filled by readerly interpretation, and I will discuss these in the next section in the larger context of
a dialogism of narrative structures. This chapter has so far been mostly
concerned with the ways in which the focalisation technique becomes
environmentally meaningful, but the instances that Timo Mller calls
moments of condensation0OOHU that is, symbols and
metaphoric meaning do exist as well, of course. Some examples of
how both go together will complement my reading of the world-astext.
One of the strongest motifs is text that is capable of bringing nature
to life: 1LUPDOV GLDU\, for instance, has a strong effect RQ .DQDLV
conscience and enables him to understand the Sundarbans. This text
thus conveys a sense of specific natural phenomena because nature
FDQ EH UHDG DV D FRGH[ WKDW KDG EHHQ DXWKRUHG E\ WKH HDUWK LWself
(THT 269).9 In one of the crucial passages that depict these analogies,
9
,Q WKLV SDVVDJH .DQDL UHDOLVHV WKDW 3L\DV VWXGLHV RI ZDWHU HFRORJ\ DQG PDULQH
fauna correspond to his own interest in literary texts and translation, and the novel
thus elegantly comments on the analogies between both forms of making sense:
>3L\D@ZDVEDFNLQSRVLWLRQZLWKKHUELQRFXODUVIL[HGWRKHUH\HVZDWFKLQJWKH
water with a closeness of attention that reminded Kanai of a textual scholar poring
over a yet-undeciphered manuscript: it was as though she were puzzling over a
codex that had been authored by the earth itself. [...] [H]e too had peered into the
unknown as if through an eyeglass [...] And he remembered too the obstacles, the
frustration, the sense that he would never be able to [...] put sentences together in
>@DZD\WKDWVHHPHGWRFDOOIRUDUHFDVWLQJRIWKHXVXDORUGHURIWKLQJV
104
Kanai unwraps the diary his uncle has left for him: Kanai has to unwrap the covering, layer by layer, thinking of youthful memories
while at the same time leaving behind the artificial OD\HUVRISODVWLF
The packet was wrapped in layers of plastic that had been pasted together with
some kind of crude industrial glue. On top was a piece of paper that looked as if it
KDGEHHQWRUQIURPDQRWHERRNDQGZULWWHQXSRQLWLQKLVXQFOHVKDQGZHUH.aQDLVQDPHDQGKLVDGGUHVVRIWZHQW\\HDUVEHIRUH.DQai squeezed the packet behind his fingers but could not make out exactly what lay inside. [...] Looking
around him, he saw half a razor blade lying on the window sill. He picked up the
sharp-edged sliver of metal [...]. After cutting a few layers, he saw, lying inside,
like an egg in his nest, a small cardboard-covered notebook [...]. [H]e had been
expecting lose sheets poems, essays anything but a single notebook. He
IOLSSHGLWRSHQDQGVDZWKDWLWZDVFRYHUHGLQ>@1LUPDOVKDQG>@'HVSLWHWKH
many layers of plastic, the paper was covered with damp spots. (THT 67)
:HNQRZWKHQRWHERRNLQTXHVWLRQWREH.DQDLVJDWHZD\WRDQXQGHrstanding of both nature and other people but, for the moment, the text
LVRQO\FRQFHUQHGZLWK.DQDLVH[SHULHQFHRIOaying bare the precious
content, which to him resembles an egg, a natural symbol deeply connected to cultural ideas of proliferation, fruitfulness and fragility. Notably, this is contrasted by the crude industrial glue$JDLQWKHWH[W
engages with the binary logic of nature and culture, and again, it presents a moment of transgressing this logical division.
By cutting open the packet, Kanai gets rid of more and more of the
artificial plastic sheets only to find a single book. Later, the reader
learns how the inclusiveness of the text contained within (incorporating local myth as well as canonical Western poetry) becomes connected with the idea of ecology. It also becomes clear that it was NirPDOV GHOLEHUDWHDLP WR QDUUDWH WKHWLGDOHQYLURQPHQWDQG WKH H[SHUiences of the KXPDQV WKDW OLYH LQ WKLV HQYLURQPHQW DV 5LONHV OLQH
6SHDNDQGWHVWLI\WXUQVLQWRDPHssage written for [his] eyes only,
ILOOHGZLWKKLGGHQPHDQLQJ; THT 275). Thus.DQDLVHQFRXQWHUZLWK
the notebook functions as a prolepsis that IRUHVKDGRZV1LUPDOVeventual success in writing the environment in ways that Kanai is able to
grasp: the notebook literally contains traces of the ubiquitous tide
country as the paper was covered with damp spots.
For his RZQGHYHORSPHQWLWLVQRWDEOHWKDW3L\DVFORVHDWWHQWLRQWRWKHHQYLURQPHQWDOPDQXVFULSWUHPLQGVKLPRIDW\SHRIHQJDJHPHQWWKDWKHVHHPVWRKDYH

lost.
105
Another equally strong motif is introduced with the dolphins that

Piya has come to study. After some confusion about what species the
dolphins were according to the Linnaean classification system she was
WUDLQHGLQVKHOHDUQVWKDWDSSDUHQWO\WKHGROSKLQVKDGIRXQGDQRYHO
ZD\RIDGDSWLQJWKHLUEHKDYLRXUWRWKHWLGDOHFRORJ\ (THT 124). They
are able to live in salt water as well as in the water of the rivers and
thus have become sort of hybrid creatures. For Piya, the numerous
FRQQHFWLRQVDQGLQVWDQFHVRIK\EULGLVDWLRQSRLQWWRWKHGD]]OLQJYDULHW\ RI DTXDWLF OLIH IRUPV WKLQNLQJ DERXW WKHVH FRQQHFWLRQV DQG
interrelations, Piya had to close her eyes, so dazzling was the universe
of possibilities (THT 125). While Piya is still being amazed by this
natural variety, the reader can already connect WKHGROSKLQVDELOLW\WR
adapt to the utopian idea that behavioural adaptation and peaceful coexistence are possible even across the species boundary. When Piya
learns that dolphins sometimes help groups of fishermen with their
fishing, she wonders whether there
exist[s] any more remarkable instance of symbiosis between human beings and a
population of wild animals? She could not think of one. There was truly no limit,
it seemed, to the cetacean gift for springing surprises. (169)10
Such cooperative moments are of course not restricted to humananimal encounters, but are likewise possible between Piya and Fokir,
between the Western scientist and the illiterate local fisherman. When
3L\D ZDQWV WR PHDVXUH WKH GROSKLQV VSDWLDO PRYHPHQW VKH QHHGHG
[Fokir] to row the boat in parallel lines over a quadrant shaped
roughly like a triangle, with its apex almost WRXFKLQJ WKH IDU VKRUH
DQGWRKHUVXUSULVH)RNLULVHQWKXVLDVWLFDERXWWKLVLGHD(YLGHQWO\
he wanted to use the opportunity to do some fishing (139-40). Not
RQO\ GRHV VKH UHDOLVH WKDW )RNLUV LQWHQWLRQV can be harmonised with
her own, moreover, she LV DPD]HG WR OHDUQ WKDW )RNLUV FDWFK JUHZ
steadily with each successive run (141).
While it stages an inextricable connection of nature and culture by
means of its narrative design, The Hungry Tide also employs ideas of
transcultural and even transspecies community. This effort at overt
harmonisation, however, comes at the cost of a somewhat plain happy
ending: despite the death of Fokir and the dramatic climax of the
10
1RWH DOVR WKDW 3L\D KDV WKXV PRYHG IURP WKH LGHD RI D VFLHQWLILF K\SRWKHVLV RI
VWXQQLQJHOHJDQFHDQGHFRQRP\WRZDUGVDPD]HPHQWZRQGHUDQGPRVWLPSRUtantly, awe (see THT 169).
106
VWRUPWKHODVWFKDSWHUWHOOVRI3L\DVGHFLVLRQWRPRYHWRWKH6XQGDrbans and of her inclusion into the social structures of the local population. In the following section, I will comment on this somewhat too
slick harmony that includes a superficial depiction and eventual unifiFDWLRQ RI VXEDOWHUQ DQG :HVWHUQ QHHGV LQ IDFW ERWK WKH neat distinction EHWZHHQ:HVWHUQDQGLQGLJHQRXVLGHQWLWLHVDQGWKHKDUPonising strategy employed will be shown to constitute a gap in the interpretation of the narrative deep structure, which has to be addressed.
That the novel stages diverse forms of harmonisation therefore marks
only a first step for EnvironMentality.
4.2 Gaps and Tensions

To a remarkable extent, narrative harmonisation and the experience of
alterity in The Hungry Tide rely on the gaps and tensions in the text.
This is why I want to move on from the discussion of deep and surface
structure DQGWKHTXHVWLRQRIHQYLURQPHQWDOIRFDOLVDWLRQWRZDUGVWKH
textual semantics of difference that ultimately allows for EnvironMentality. Before I do so, however, I will discuss the role of narrative
mimesis in this context and briefly comment on the question of realism and mimetic representations of the environment. If ecocriticism
PHDQV DV *HUVGRUI DQG 0D\HU VWDWH D FULWLFDO reassessment of the
IXQFWLRQDOUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQFXOWXUDOWH[WVDQGWKHLUPDWHULDOUHferents, i.e. a re-evaluation of mimesis and representation (2006b: 11),
what does this mean for a hermeneutics of (postcolonial) ecocriticism?
Does a language that LVEHQWWRZDUG the world (Buell 2008: 33) imply mimetic representation in terms of literary realism at all? Or can
the idea of environmental mimesis be re-assessed by engaging with
the literary discourse of the novel?
It is true that many of the moments of literary harmonisation I described above are on the level of figural constellations and the characWHUV EHKDYLRXU EXW DUJXDEO\ WKH PRVW LPSUHVVLYH HQYLURQPHQWDO Hffect lies on a structural or, in the broadest sense, formal level: Kanai
DQG3L\DValternating focalisation, which is related to the tidal movement and recreates it within the environmental imagination. ConseTXHQWO\WKHLGHDRIHQYLURQPHQWDOPLPHVLVLVQRWERXQGWRUHIHUHnWLDO UHDOLVW DFFRXQWV RI QDWXUH 2Q WKH FRQWUDU\ WKH PRPHQW WKe
narrative is bent towards the world and the reality of the Sundarbans is
107
established by a fictionalised account of the tidal rhythm that is staged

as a narrative principle of the novel.11
In this context, it is necessary to remember WKDWalternating focaliVDWLRQ GRHV QRW HQJHQGHU DQ\ HQYLURQPHQWDO HIIHFWV per se; rather,
this narrative technique comprises a gap to be filled with meaning in
the process of making sense of the narrative.12 Since both the idea of
harmonisation and the narrative emplotment of the tidal environment
are reflected on various levels of the text, it is in the reading process
that these levels of meaning are coordinated with regard to the environmentalist effect of the whole narrative. This effect is therefore connected to the readHUO\ ZLOOLQJQHVV WR VHL]H WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ >@ WR
bring into play our own faculty for establishing connections for filling the gaps left by the text itself (Iser 1974: 280). Such interpretive
HQJDJHPHQW+DQQHV%HUJWKDOOHUDUJXHVPHDQVWKDWWKHUHDGer must
reach beyond the text and take the leap from the fictional world of the
WH[WWRWKHLQGLYLGXDOH[WUDWH[WXDOZRUOG (Bergthaller 2006: 167). It is
this diegetic leap that facilitates environmental mimesis not the
positivistic realism of the text. Thus, the ethics of reading the worldas-text are engendered because tKHWH[WDOORZVWKHUHDGHUDVklovsky
SXWVLWWRSHUFHLYH>LW@LQDVSHFLDOZD\WKDWLVLQWKHIRUPRIDviVLRQ >@ UDWKHU WKDQ PHUH UHFRJQLWLRQ (klovsky 2009: 10). The
text does not simply attest to what is already known: it opens up new
ways of seeing. This section discusses the implications of such an
experience of the world-as-text by the reader, particularly in a postcolonial context.
The unifying effect of the tidal rhythm that correlates with the
changes in focalisation is supplemented by experiences of difference.
As the reader engages with the text, these differences become meaningful. For example, my initial proposition that the novel deals with
ORFDO LQKDELWDQWV RQ WKH RQH KDQG DQG YLVLWRUV RQ WKH RWKHU ORVHV
plausibility when we look at the rootedness of the various characters:
experiences of foreignness and migration mark almost all characters
11
12
On this idea, see also Hannes Bergthaller (2006), who in a discussion of the role
of mimesis in the ecocritical debate argues that the idea of an ethics of ecomimetic
literature LVEDVHGRQDPLVFRQFHSWLRQRIWKHUROHRIPLPHVLVLWLV QRWWKHUHIHUHQWLDOGLPHQVLRQ which lends a text its ethical force, but rather narrative form
(156).
There are of course numerous examples, from Fielding to Austen and to Dickens,
ZKHUH VKLIWLQJ IRFDOLVDWLRQ LV QRW HQYLURQPHQWDO DW DOO ,Q HDFh case, however,
the particular focalising technique has an effect on readerly interpretation.
108
and dominate many of the events. The idea of stable identities and
environments are thus similarly put into question. The characters do
not represent a nationality, ethnicity or identity without at the same
time deconstructing the essentialism innate to such notions. Moreover,
the environment in which these characters live and act has been foreign to most of them (and it remains strange because it changes constantly). Pablo Mukherjee describes this strangeness with regard to the
characters, FODLPLQJ WKDW 3L\DV DQGURJ\QRXV SK\VLFDOLW\ PDUNV Ker
RXW DV DQ H[RWLF IRUHLJQHU, ZKLOH .DQDL >OLNHZLVH HPERGLHV@ D
metro/cosmopolitan separation from the environs of suburban Calcutta
and rural Bengal (2006: 150). Nirmal is a refugee from Dhaka, and
Nilima belongs to a wealthy family from Calcutta. Even Fokir is, as
MukheUMHH SXWV LW DQ DOLHQ son of Kusum, who herself came to
the Sundarbans as a Bangladeshi refugee (150; emphasis orig.). The
motifs of being uprootHG DQG QHZ IRUPV RI EHORQJLQJ, Mukherjee
concludes, are a constant presence in the text on various levels (150).
What interests me here, however, is not so much the vision of (rural)
cosmopolitanism that can be deduced from the figural ensemble (cf.
Johansen 2008) but the fact that it is the environment that integrates
such differences of origin and provenance by structurLQJQHZIRUPV
RI EHORQJLQJ The individual socio-political histories of the characters are brought into play with the overall environment.
This connection, however, DOVRSRLQWVWRWKHHQYLURQPHQWVVRFLRSROLWLFDO GLPHQVLRQ 7KH DUHD, Frank Schulze-(QJOHU ZULWHV LV Dlmost totally under the control of the Forestry Department, which as
Piya realizes soon after her arrival rules over the local population in
the manner of an occupying army (2009: 179). It is impossible to
read the text strictly in terms of a nature/culture divide or in the context of an encounter with a pristine natural ecosystem. On the contrary, the enmeshment of social and natural realities constantly affects
WKH H[SHULHQFHV RI WKH FKDUDFWHUV 3L\D DQG WKH UHDGHUV RI WKH WH[W
increasingly become aware that her scientific research forms a part of
DODUJHUQHWZRUNLQZKLFKSROLWLFVFXOWXUHDQGQDWXUHEHFRPHLQHxtricably intertwined (180).13 The entanglement of world and text does
13
Schulze-Engler relates this observation to the scene in which a tiger is tortured

and eventually killed (I will discuss this scene below), saying that what happens in
WKLVVFHQHLVFOHDUO\QRWDVLPSOHFRQIURQWDWLRQEHWZHHQPDQDQGDQLPDOERWKWKH
WLJHU DQG WKH YLOODJHUV UHDFWLRQ WRZDUG LW KDYH EHFRPH PRQVWURXV EHFDXVH WKH\
are embedded in a mlange of nature, culture, economic interests, science, envirRQPHQWDOLVPDQGSROLWLFV
109
not necessarily result in harmony; it is also marked by serious tensions.

The deconstruction of both national identity and the nature/culture
divide, however, does not weaken the point of an environmental reading of the text. Instead, it illuminates a complex net of relations that a
postcolonial-ecocritical reading must deal with. Dominic Head describes WKHVH UHODWLRQV DQG FRQQHFWLRQV DV D FKDOOHQJH WR ERWK WKH
actual political marginalization of ecology, and to the dangers of overWH[WXDOLVDWLRQ (Head 1998: 37). He employs the concept of doublecoding WKDW Anthony Vital understands DV D VROXWLRQ WKDW SURSRVHV
grasping the textuality of literature while simultaneously [dealing]
with what is extratextual (Vital 2009: 89). Double-coding thus
thrives on the tension stemming from the fact that many environmental texts are concerned with nature and culture at the same time
(for both are inextricably entwined). Reading helps us to understand
this, and understanding in the case of The Hungry Tide becomes likewise possible through the concept of the world-as-text. On the one
hand, we have a narrative that deals with an ecosystem and constantly
refers to the sociopolitcal dimension of this place. On the other hand,
the narrative strategies are inextricably connected to the natural
rhythm of the tide. The novel thus addresses the harmonising prospect
of the world-as-text and the tensions such relations encompass. By
bringing both aspects together, it thus exemplifies how to narrate
UHDOLW\LQQRQ-referentialist ways.
This negotiation is fostered by a number of textual gaps. This idea
points to the work of Wolfgang Iser, who has described this very
process in The Implied Reader (1974) and elsewhere. Iser claims that
the filling of semantic gaps by readerly activity does not only constitute the meaning of the text, but that, furthermore, several meanings
DUH SRVVLEOH LQ RQH WH[W EHFDXVH WKH WH[W DOZD\V WUDQVFHQGV >@ WKH
wandering gaze of the reader (Iser 1976: 178; my translation). That
every reader necessarily brings him- or herself into the interpretive
process can also be connected to the question of the convergence of
nature and culture. This is because the individual living experience
and the reality of the environment humans are part of are brought into
WKHWH[W E\ ZKDW .DUOKHLQ] 6WLHUOH FDOOVconnecting worlds in literature (quoted in Gurr 2012: n.p.). When we read, we have to connect
the reality of our world to the realm of the imaginary world of a text.
EnvironMentality emerges from this connection and the gaps it has to
bridge.
110
Such a SDUDGR[LFDO FRPELQDWLRQ RI GHFHQWULQJ DQG recentring

(Head 1998: 28, emphasis orig.) is facilitated by the interplay of textual form and aspects of content. By reading these two aspects together
and not in terms of a dualism, we can understand how the text negotiates the aporias to which it inevitably adheres. This seems to be in line
ZLWK+HDGZKRZDQWVWRNQRZKRZDPHDQLQJIXOSDWKthrough literary theory can be found, how the insights of theory can be put to useful service in reinforcing ecological understanding (29; emphasis
orig.). Head critically reDVVHVVHV%XHOOVIRFXVRQWKHPLPHWLFSRWHntials of literature and shifts the attention towards the aesthetics of fiction, ZKLFKZRXOGVHHPWREHSHFXOLDUO\UHVLVWDQWWRWKHRSHUDWLRQVRI
HFRFULWLFLVP(32) as Buell understands it. In particular, Head wonders
ZKHWKHUWKLVJHQUH>RIILFWLRQDOSURVHQDUUDWLYHV@LVWRRPXFKDSURduct of its social moment to ruminate usefully on the route to the postLQGXVWULDOZRUOG (32). For me, the instances, or constant presence, of
double-coding seems a viable way of brLQJLQJ WRJHWKHU WKH QRYHOV
anthropocentric moment and the potential of environmental mimesis.
Mukherjee claims that The Hungry Tide WHOOVWKHWDOHRIEHORQJLQJ
through a meditation on the issues of language, representation and
mimetic techniques that can be read as a meta-commentary on the
form of the postcolonial novel itself (2010: 121). I agree and hold
that in bringing together textuality and the environment, it also allows
for an ethical engagement beyond any claims to universalism, science
or a predetermined moral stance. It is with Zapf as well as Head that I
suggest an ecocritical reading practice situated in a context where
OLWHUDWXUH DQG OLWHUDU\ VWXGLHV FDQ FRQWULEXWH LQ VLJQLILFDQW ZD\V WR
>WKH@WUDQVGLVFLSOLQDU\ GLDORJXH RI WKHHWKLFDO Wurn in the humanities
(Zapf 2009: 847). Such a reading practice understands fictional harmonisation more in terms of an emplotment of oppositional poles than
in a staging of solutions. What we have to take into account, therefore,
is the literary potential to irritate, to cause a tension between expectations and the fulfilment of these expectations and, ultimately, to resist
PRUDOLVWLFVWRU\WHOOLQJ (854) just as much as conventional plotlines.
The ethical and harmonising potential of fiction lies in the prospect of
a hermeneutic engagement with the always-interacting elements of
story and discourse.
An ecocritical interpretive theory must deal with the question of
KRZ WKH decentring and recentring RI WKH QRYHO DV DQ DQWKURSRFHQWULF FXOWXUDO DUWHIDFt can be connected with ecocentric means.
Since it merges environmental aspects and those of human mentality,
111
which are the basis of any hermeneutic understanding, EnvironMentality transcends these very dichotomies and engenders a sense of
interrelation. My reading of The Hungry Tide (as well as the readings
in the following chapters) is accordingly concerned with describing
and interpreting the various experiences of interrelation without overlooking the fact that tensions are part of this experience. With this is
mind, %XHOOVFRQFHSWRIPLPHVLVFDQEHUHDVVHVVHG7KHHWKLFDOIRUFH
of literature does not lie in its vraisemblance but emerges through
readerly engagement with narrative form, the gaps that any interpretation has to deal with, and the diegetic leap (Bergthaller) that interpretation encompasses.
%RWK +HDG DQG %HUJWKDOOHU GLVFXVV %XHOOV FRQFHSWV DQG DGGUHVV
KLV PLVFRQFHSWLRQ RI PLPHVLV E\ UHIHUULQJ WR 3DXO 5LFXU (see
Bergthaller 2006: 170; Head 2008: 237-8)5LFXUV notion of mimesis as a threefold concept explains the mimetic quality of texts in
terms of a process of configuration, and not with regard to imitation. It
is with this model of three-IROG PLPHVLV PLPHVLV1 PLPHVLV2
PLPHVLV3 that
our worldly experience of time and action [is emplotted]. [It thus] traces how
these elements of preunderstanding are drawn on in the composition of a text, and
stresses a return to the world of the reader in the active process of reception and
interpretation. And the more self-conscious and artificial the text is, the more effort is required in its interpretation, and so (if it is successful) the greater its impact will be at the level of mimesis 3. (Head 2008: 238)
7KHcDWDVWURSKLFDQWKURSRFHQWUHGQHVV of the novel thus becomes

its potentiDO DQG WKH OLWHUDU\ URXWH IRU FKDQJLQJ FRQVFLRXVQHVV that
XOWLPDWHO\XQGHUFXWVWKHELQDU\RSSRVLWLRQEHWZHHQDQWKURSRFHQWULVP
and ecocentrism, since human perception is continuous with the material world (Head 2008: 238). The narrative composition of The Hungry Tide illustrates this idea by way of its focalisation which can be
read as the mediating and reality-shaping power of nature on the one
hand, and the idea of the entanglement of environment and culture on
the other. It thus benefits from the tension of these two interpretive
possibilities as the text ultimately undercuts this binary opposition in
the process of hermeneutic negotiation.
The role and design of the figural ensemble display another ambiguous double function and thus a gap in The Hungry Tide. On the
one hand, Piya and Kanai, as well as Fokir, can easily be read as mere
IODW FKDUDFWHUV GXH WR WKHLU RYHUW VLJQLILFDQFH DV W\SHV UDWKHU WKDQ
112
individuals. On the other hand, however, their representative character

is meaningful for the narrative construction as a whole. Piya is a
Western-educated and -socialised scientist with roots in India, and we
OHDUQWKDWVKHLVWRUQEHWZHHQ.DQDLDQG)RNLU (THT 360). Kanai is a
mundane and flirtatious interpreter from the Indian metropolis the
UHDO ,QGLD, as he says and Fokir is a fisherman representing the
subaltern. Although he is not literally unable to speak, he cannot
communicate with Piya unless Kanai translates his words (for Piya as
well as for the reader).
Fokir, however, is capable of speaking about, and maybe even for,
the environment he is acquainted with in several ways. Thus, Piya and
Fokir can communicate when they refer to this environment. Fokir is
even able to serve as an interpreter: he is familiar with the local myth
by means of which Kanai eventually learns to understand the natural
environment of the Sundarbans, and he enthrals Piya with his mythic
VRQJ7KHQRYHOVPDLQFRQIOLFWVDQGSORWHYROYHIURPWKHFKDUDFWHUV
mutual capability of translation and the conflicts this triadic constellation creates. In the end, two different readings are possible: taken as
individuals, the three characters can be read as mouthpieces for conflicting classes or types, making their story an allegory of the struggles
in the Sundarbans. As a group, they not only help each other but comSOHPHQW HDFK RWKHUV SHUVSHFWLYHV DQG WKXV suggest the necessity of
dialogue for an understanding of environment and culture.
3L\DVEHLQJWRUQEHWZHHQ.DQDLDQG)RNLUUHLQIRUFHVWKHVWUXFWXUDO
principle of the text as a narrative literally swaying between ebb and
flood, between ODQGDQGZDWHUDVLQWKHGHSWKVRIKHUKHDUWVKHNQHZ
she would always be torn between the one and the other (THT 360).
In expressing these connections through its set of characters, the novel
negotiates issues of locality, nationality and cosmopolitan encounter.
And while it might be unlikely that Western science will ultimately be
reconciled with the needs of local peoples and still follow a preservationist agenda, an allegory allows for such a closure: Piya as a personification of Western science can indeed lose all her data but at the
same time learn to understand the environment through translated
accounts of others. Thus, she not only observes but inhabits the
Sundarbans. Having survived the existential threat of the storm with
the help of Fokir and at the cost of his life, she eventually even decides to live there as the story suggests, at home.
On the other hand, this strategy of emplotment-by-personification
remains overly simplistic and, ultimately, improbable. But the text
113
comments on this too, and the textual commentary can again be found
LQWKHVWUXFWXUDOSDWWHUQ,GHVFULEHGLQWKHODVWFKDSWHUWKHWKUHHQHVV
of the main characters is a rupture in an otherwise extremely dualistic
narrative. On the one hand, this antagonism expresses an exclusion of
human beings from an otherwise dualistically structured environment.
Human estrangement from nature, by these means, finds expression,
and the tragic ending in particular underscores such a reading. On the
other hand, there are numerous narrative instances when two of the
characters melt into one, thus temporarily abolishing this tension. KaQDL IRU LQVWDQFH PHUJHV ZLWK KLV JUDQGIDWKHU QRW RQO\ ZKHQ KH
quotes Rilke in his letter to Piya (thus pointing to the possibility of
literary negotiations of understanding Nirmal had hoped for);14 moreover, his reading the diary enables him to access the mindset of his
grandfather so as to understand one of the most important natureorientated emotions: fear.
The motif of fear permeates the whole narrative and indicates the
unspeakable: the presence of a tiger. Fokir shows his alertness by
pointing to his goose bumps (see THT 322), and Nirmal, too, is confronted with the power of fear when Horen takes him to Garjantola:
'R \RX IHHO WKH IHDU" 7KH IHDU" , VDLG >@ :K\ VKRXOG , EH
DIUDLG" >@ %HFDXVH LWV WKH IHDU WKDW SURWHFWV \RX 6DDU LWV ZKDW
keeps you alive (244). Kanai reads these lines later on, and it is remarkable that here, fear is actually communicated through literature.
The dialogue is repeated by Fokir and Kanai when they embark for
*DUMDQWROD ,W VHHPV WKDW E\ UHDGLQJ 1LUPDOV GLDU\ .DQDL had prepared to understand his own fear when he came to Garjantola. The
actual experience of the mangrove forest is as important as the quesWLRQ&DQ\RXIHHOWKHIHDU" (322), EHFDXVH>DW@WKDWPRPHQWQRWhing existed for him but language, the pure structure of sound that had
IRUPHG)RNLUVTXHVWLRQ (322).
His not feeling the fear at first leads to the argument between Fokir
DQG.DQDLDVZHOODVWR.DQDLVHSLSKDQ\when he encounters a tiger
on the island. The text thus balances textual mediation and language
and the equally important nature-FXOWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW RI WKe mangrove forest, the water, the boat (322). Again, and this time via Kanai, the text implies the necessary enmeshment of natural and cultural
aspects: wKLOH D FHUWDLQ NLQG RI QDWXUDO LQVWLQFW VHHPV FUXFLDO DOO
14
6HH*KRVKZKHUH.DQDLHQGVKLVOHWWHUE\TXRWLQJIURP5LONHV1LQWK
Elegy.
114
QDWXUDO LQVWLQFWV GLVDSSHDU IURP .DQDLV FRQVFLRXVQHVV ZKHQ FRnIURQWHG ZLWK WKH TXHVWLRQ IURP )RNLUV PRXWK )RU WKH GLVFRXUVHoriented Kanai, linguistic mediation seems a necessary preparation for
the environmental experience, and by staging the connectedness of
nature and linguistic representation, the novel again suggests that a
mutual connection between world and text is indeed possible.
PL\DDQG.DQDLVGLDORJXHWKHGD\DIWHUWKHJURXSZLWQHVVWKHYLolent killing of a captured tiger is another example of such a form of
merging. This instance elegantly shows the narrative capability to
GLVVROYH SDUDGLJPDWLF RSSRVLWLRQV E\ >@ WHPSRUDOL]LQJ WKHP E\
SURMHFWLQJ WKHP LQWR D QDUUDWLYH VHTXHQFH, as Gurr claims (2012:
n.p.). In this scene, Kanai tries to console the shocked Piya. She says,
, IHHO ,OO QHYHU EH DEOH WR JHW P\ PLQG DURXQG WKH --- .DQDL
SURPSWHGDVVKHIDOWHUHG7KHKRUURU"7KHKRUURU\HV>@ (THT
300). In this dialogue, the narrative refers intertextually to Joseph
&RQUDGVThe Heart of Darkness (1899). But unlike .XUW]s words in
&RQUDGVQRYHOKHUHWZRVHQWHQFH-fragments constitute a single dialogic utterance. The intertextual reference thus transcends the initial
literary motif of unspeakability and the incapability of language that
&RQUDGVQRYHOQHJRWLDWHG:KLOHLQ&RQUDGVQRYHOWKHODVWZRUGVRI
Kurtz seek to acknowledge the horrors of the Congo, in The Hungry
Tide, Piya and Kanai both effectively formulate, via language, a way
RI GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKHLU H[SHULHQFH WKH\ LQYRNH &RQUDGV 7KH KRUURU
the horror!GLDORJLFDOO\DQGWKXVVKDUHWKHH[SHULHQFHRIWKHXQVSHDkable.
The most striking example of merging, however, is given by Piya
and Fokir. When Fokir shields Piya in the storm at the end of the narrative, the text suggests that the two eventually become one single
RUJDQLVP6RRQKHUOXQJVDGDSWHGWRWKHUK\WKPRIKLVGLDSKUDJPDV
it pumped in and out of the declivity of her lower back. Everywhere
WKHLUERGLHVPHWWKHLUVNLQZDVMRLQHGE\DWKLQPHPEUDQHRIVZHDW
2EYLRXVO\ WKH membrane of sweat has erotic connotations
)RNLUV VZHDWLVD UHFXUULQJ PRWLILQ WKH SDVVDJHVZKHUH 3L\D LVWKH
focaliser) while the storm can be read as signifying death. In this climax of love and death, as it were, Fokir turns into a shield for Piya,
his body preventing WKHIO\LQJREMHFWVIURPKLWWLQJKHUDQGLWZDVDV
if the storm had given them what life could not; it had fused them
together and made them one (390).
Notably, the structural motif of merging into one is anticipated by
the narrative structure of focalisation. This scene is narrated by an
115
overtly heterodiegetic narrative voice, and while before, focalisation

changed per chapter, in this chapter, both focalisers exist side by side.
The narrative effect of this is significant. It has been remarked by several critics that the tension engendered by the technique of focalisation
is relieved by the storm and, on a formal level, by the multiperspective narrative of this chapter. However, such passages can be
found earlier in the narrative too. In Chapter 42, 7KHMegha43), for instance, Piya and Kanai act alternately as focalisers within a
chapter that is mediated by a heterodiegetic voice. While Kanai abVRUEV1LUPDOVQDUUDWLYHDQGWKHORFDOP\WKEHFRPHVDIRUPRIFRmmon story that all characters share in various ways, this heterodiegetic
voice warrants an orienting perspective and thus functions as a reintegrative instance. It is therefore in a second interpretive step, which
moves on from the recognition of a trope that could be described as
HQYLURQPHQWDO IRFDOLVDWLRQ WKDWWKH UHDGHUO\ IRFXV FDQ QRZ HQJDJH
with this heterodiegetic voice and its significance in the context of the
QDUUDWLYHVHQYLURQPHQWDOPHDQLQJ,QWKHSUHYLRXVFKDSWHUWKHIRFDOisation and its oscillation were of interest. In a second step, these findLQJVOHDGWRDUHDVVHVVPHQWRIWKHDXWKRULDOHOHPHQWVRIWKHWH[W
This integrating voice provides coherence and explanations that are
particularly necessary for readers unaccustomed with the cultural
sphere the story narrates and, thus, enables a dialogue. Too disembodLHG WR DFWXDOO\ SDVV DV DQ DXWKRULDO QDUUDWRU LW UHSUHVHQWV D WUXO\
heterodiegetic voice RU D FRPPXQDO SULQFLSOH15 which orchestrates
the swaying human focalisations. However, there are moments when
the narrativH VHHPV WR WDNH VLGHV 7KLV (re-)creates certain dichotomies, especially when the narrative is dealing with the suffering of
humans and animals. In the scene of the torture and killing of the tiger
by the migrant/local population, Piya is silenced. She is incapable of
acting due to the sheer brutality of the acts of torture and because of
.DQDLVSDWHUQDOLVWLFH[SODQDWLRQWKDW>Z@HDOONQRZLWEXWZHFKRRVH
QRWWRVHHLW,VQWWKDWDKRUURUWRR that we can feel the suffering of
an animal but not of KXPDQEHLQJV" (300-1).
Here, Ghosh directly includes an argument from the Deep versus
Social Ecology-debate, and it seems that this time, Social Ecology is
given the last word. While the narrative seems to reconcile human
perspectives in its ending, the question of the animal remains
15
)RUDGLVFXVVLRQRIWKHQRWLRQRIWKHFRPPXQDO YRLFHLQWKHFRQWH[WRIEnvironMentality, see Chapter 6.
116
XQUHVROYHG7RJHWKHUZLWK3L\DVGHFLVLRQWREHFRPHD URRWHG FRsPRSROLWDQUDWKHUWKDQDIRRW-ORRVHH[SHUW (Huggan & Tiffin 2010:

188) with interest solely in the local dolphin population, the final solution suggested by the text
is only possible because the local people have no particular issue with the dolphins; the much more intractable problem of tiger sanctuary is thus displaced by a
UHODWLYHO\HDV\GROSKLQVROXWLRQDQGQHLWKHUDSUDFWLFDOQRUDSKLORVRSKLFDODnswer to the situation of the tiger is offered in its place. (Huggan & Tiffin 2010:
188)
+XJJDQDQG7LIILQDUHVXUHO\ULJKWLQWKHLUFODLPWKDWWKHGROSKLQ
VROXWLRQ PLJKW FRPH DW WRR ORZ D FRVW DQG GRHV QRW DFFRXQW IRUWKH
PRUHSUHVVLQJLVVXHVRIWKHWRUWXUHGWLJHUDQGWKH3URMHFW7LJHU policy in general. The tiger as a stand-in for the politics of preservation
DJDLQVWWKHQHHGVRIORFDOSHRSOHHQGVDVDVDFULILFLDOV\PERORIYLoOHQFH LWVHOI DQGDFFRUGLQJO\ UHPDLQV RXWVLGH ERWK WKH YDULRXV Oocal) human communities in the novel and the environmental ethic its
author apparently seeks to propose (189; see also Bhattacharya
2007). However, this study is not concerned with the ethics that a
QRYHOVDXWKRUPLJKWVHHPWRbe proposing. Instead, it asks about the
interpretive potential a given narrative composition encompasses. This
focus allows for readings that hermeneutically engage with RQHVpersonal prejudgePHQWVDQGWKHWH[WVIRUPDOFRPSRVLWLRQDOLNHas I will
show in my reading of the tiger motif.
The unresolved tension of the tiger scene is remarked on close to
the end, when another tiger becomes a victim of the storm and struggles for survival face to face with Piya and Fokir. In contrast to the
brutal account of torture and the cruel practice of blinding the tiger,
this second encounter is established around the idea of personal recognition and seeing.16 The first human-animal contact in this scene is
Piya touching an exhausted bird that had evidently been following the
VWRUPVH\H LWZDVWUHPEOLQJDQGVKHFRXOGIHHOWKHIOXWWHULQJRILWV
heart (THT 389). This encounter is followed by Fokir
pointing into the distance to another thicket of trees. Following his finger, [Piya]
saw a tiger pulling itself out of the water and into a tree on the far side of the island. It seemed to have been following the storPV H\H OLNH WKH ELUGV UHVWLQJ
16
$PRQJRWKHUWKLQJV/HYLQDVZRUNRQWKHHWKLFVRIWKHJD]HDQG'HUULGDVGHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHDQLPRWresonate here. For a study on the animal gaze in a postcolonial context, see Woodward 2009.
117
whenever it could. It became aware of their presence at exactly the same moment
they spotted it [...]. Without blinking, the tiger watched them for several minutes
[...]. She could imagine that if she had been able to put a hand on its coat, she
would have been able to feel the pounding of its heart. (THT 389)
ClearO\+XJJDQDQG7LIILQVREVHUYDWLRQWKDWWKHWLJHULVH[FOXGHGLV
not altogether correct, for the tiger in this scene does share a moment
of reciprocal perception with the human beings. The scene even counterweighs the motif of blinding by maintaining a reciprocal gaze in the
VWRUPV eye. Remarkably, this scene constitutes an unreal moment of
silence during the storm where all living animals (humans included)
VKDUH WKH VDPH IDWH DQG VHHP WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH RWKHUV YXOQHUDELOLW\
EHIRUHWDNLQJDGHHSEUHDWKDVWKHURDURIWKe wind filled their heads
again (THT 389).
Before addressing the intriguing structural conception of the two
encounters with tigers, both set at crucial moments of the narrative, it
is important to understand that the introduction of the tiger constitutes
a powerful narrative moment with the tiger functioning as a gap in
itself, inviting all kinds of reactions and speculations IURPWKHQRYHOV
readers. Reaction and speculation, however, are bound to different
hermeneutic prejudgements, some of which I will engage with now.
Huggan and Tiffin suggest that the tiger can be read as a symbol of
national politics and power relations.17 Even more, the text suggests,
the tiger must be understood as a large creature capable of suffering.
In the first scene, this suffering is inflicted by humans, and the readerresponse will be one of unresolved tension with regard to the inability
to act. The question of readerly response is crucial here with regard to
issues of alterity, translation and compassion. It thus contributes significantly to the interpretive challenge of the novel.
Nandini Bhattacharya understands the tiger as a symbol that is
closely related to WKH SUREOHP RI WKH LPDJLQHG QDWLRQ (2007: 224)
and to the literary tradition of Bengal. She claims that what The Hungry Tide H[SORUHVLVQRWMXVWWKHKLVWRULFDO3DUWLWLRQRI%HQJDOEXWDOVR
the subsequeQWSDUWLWLRQRI%HQJDOVSV\FKH (224). Accordingly, and
17
For an insightful engagement with this argument, see Bhattacharya (2007). Bhattacharya explains the conflict of the Sundarbans settlements as a class struggle
dominated by the bhadralok (upper class), who argue ecologically mainly in order
to ensure their ongoing hegemony over the poor nimnoborgo/nimnobritto population, and she maintains that the tiger is a symbol RI %engali culture as well as
%HQJDOL>@QDWLRQDOLVP
118
complementing +XJJDQ DQG 7LIILQV DUJXPHQW %KDWWDFKDU\D XQGHrstands the tiger motif as semantically charged in different ways. Not
only is it a symbol of national power and violence, but it is, just like
post-pDUWLWLRQ %HQJDO OLWHUDOO\ IUDFWXUHG.18 ,Q WKH %HQJDOL SV\FKH
%KDWWDFKDU\DJRHVRQWRDUJXHWKHWLJHUZDVQHYHUMXVWDQRWKHUDQiPDOEXWFHOHEUDWHGLQLWVYDULHGFXOWXUDOUHSUHVHQWDWLRQV (Bhattacharya
2007: 225). This means that while the semantic potential of this motif
is rich with regard to what Bhattacharya in a somewhat essentialistic
concluVLRQ FDOOV WKH Bengali psyche, it may be lost to the great
number of readers who are not familiar with this semantic significance.
(VSHFLDOO\VLQFHWKHQRYHOLVDV0XNKHUMHHSRLQWVRXWSODFHd and
consumed in the contemporary global market (2010: 9), many readHUVZLOOPLVVWKHWLJHUVVLJQLILFDQFHDVDQDSSURSULDWHV\PERORIWKH
%HQJDOLVORVWJORU\SULGHDQGSRWHQF\MXVWDVPXFKDVLWVUROHDVD
quasi-divine figure, meting out retribution to both the oppressive British ruler, as well as his treacherous Indian ally (Bhattacharya 2007:
226; 227). If at all, these roles are conferred on the animal by the
characters and not by the text as such, and this makes the semantics of
the tiger motif part of the negotiation of meaning in general. Bhattacharya writes from the perspective of a cultural insider. The Hungry
Tide, being directed towards an international readership and relying on
heterodiegetic meta-cultural comment and character speech, does not
presuppose such insider knowledge.
Obioma Nnaemeka discusses WKHUROHRILQVLGHUVDQGRXWVLGHUV
of cultural knowledge and argues that in postcolonial criticism, there
H[LVWV D GLFKRWRP\ EHWZHHQ WKH LQVLGHU WKDW EULQJV FXOWXUDO XQGHrstanding and the outsider that brings the theoretical expertise to critical analysis (Nnaemeka 1995: 81). She goes on to argue that it is
possiEOHWREHFRPHDQinoutsider, WKDWLVVRPHRQHZKRSD\VHTXDO
attention to cultural contexts and critical theory (81). Becoming an
LQRXWVLGHUKRZHYHUUHTXLUHVDORWRIKDUGZRUNDQGDKLJKGRVHRI
humility (86). Despite the call for humility, her statement has a
18
By virtue of its focalising technique, the text supports the impression that different
FKDUDFWHUVUHDGWKHDQLPDOLQGLVWLQFWO\GLIIHUHQWZD\VWKXVoccluding the animal
DV VXFK &I %KDWWDFKDU\D, ZKR SRLQWV WR WKH IDFW WKDW >L@Q The Hungry Tide
perceptions towards the tiger seem to be strangely fractured(2007: 229). According to my reading, this strange fracturing is not coincidental but marks the gap
from which interpretive momentum gathers.
119
clearly essentialist undertone,19 and the idea that by acquiring enough

cultural knowledge so as to FRPSHQVDWH IRU WKH ODFN RI ELUWKULJKW
RQHFDQJDLQWKHHPSLULFDOULJKWWRVSHDNDERXWDQRWKHUFXOWXUDOFRntext misses the point of hermeneutic endeavours not to acquire another
perspective but to engage in a merging of horizons. Instead of humbly
learning cultural facts, readers could engage head-on with dialectical
processes of understanding. The interpretive challenge of reading the
tiger exemplifies this process.
Ultimately, this process leads to a very personal appraisal of the
text. At first, the conflict of anthropocentric and ecocentric thinking
seems to be transferable to the national identities of the characters and
sXJJHVWV D MX[WDSRVLWLRQ RI ,QGLDQ%HQJDOL ZD\V RI UHDGLQJ WKH
tiger and a Western way that refutes symbolical interpretation (maybe
for the sake of a different symbolic meaning) 20 and feels compassion
instead.21 7KLVGLFKRWRP\RIXVDQGWKHPKRZHYHULVTXLFNO\Geconstructed when the semantic burden of the tiger within Indian culture is understood, and it completely breaks down when the individual
hermeneutic horizon is identified as the relevant, interpretive yard
stick. It is not for an Indian psyche, nor is it for a Western reader it
is for me WKDW.DQDLVH[SODQDWLRQWKDWWKHWLJHUKDVWRVXIIHUDIRUPRI
revenge is simply not convincing. In the second scene quoted above,
19
20
21
For a discussion of this, see Perner (2011: 5). On the problem of insider and outsider positions and the knowledge production in postcolonial studies, see Chakrabarty (2000).
One must be careful not to over-emphasise compassion without reflecting on the
cultural contingencies of such emotions. Certainly, compassion may be affected
by ethical tradition and the semantics of anthropomorphism, for instance (see
Chapter 7 for a discussion of these aspects). However, and more importantly,
instead of reducing the alleged insider perspective to symbolism, it is necessary to
understand that the reading proposed by the local population is indebted to the
IDFWWKDWWKHVHSHRSOHDFWXDOO\VKDUHDQHQYLURQPHQWZLWKWLJHUVZKLOHWKH:HVWHUQSHUVSHFWLYHRIFRPSDVVLRQis not grounded on such experiences the danger
of armchair preservationism shows in the practice of reading, too.
7KHDVVXPSWLRQWKDWD:HVWHUQUHDGHUH[LVWVDQGWKDWLWLVSRVVLEOHWR set up an
opposition between DQ ,QGLDQ DQG D :HVWHUQ way of reading is of course extremely problematic. This clumsy dichotomy is meant to express the opposition
between cultural-relativist readings, which WU\WRDGRSWDQDWLYHVWDQFHWRZDUGV
the tiger, and the hermeneutic position which accepts that my horizon of understanding is also determined by my HPRWLRQDO UHDFWLRQ WR DQ DQLPDOV VXIIHULQJ
7KHQHFHVVLW\WRUHIOHFWRQHVKHUPHQHXWLFVLWXDWLRQFRQQHFWVZLWKZKDW+DUDZD\
GHVFULEHV DV VLWXDWHG NQRZOHGJH DQG HYHQ VKDUHV DVSHFWV RI ZKDW 6FRWW 6ORYLF
FDOOVQDUUDWLYHVFKRODUVKLS6HH5\OH
120
the idea of a common experience of pain and suffering is extended

when both humans and animals share the fate of being in the storm,
and the silence with which they gaze at each other stresses the orientation towards animal ways of encounter rather than language- or
culture-based human ways. And just as with the tension between individual and culturalist interpretations, the question of interpreting the
DQLPDO EHFRPHV D ILUVW DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO JHVWXUH LQYROYLQJ RQO\ WKH
writing of my life, myself, me alone (Derrida 2008: 52).
This reading deliberately refuses cultural-relativist explanations of
D %HQJDOL ZD\ RI SHUFHLYLQJ Whe tiger and opts for a radical selfDZDUHQHVV RI RQHV RZQ in fact, my own hermeneutic situation.
The aesthetic analysis of fiction becomes one of the aesthetics of reception in that it combines the formal aspects of a text and an individual concretisation of its aesthetic impact in terms of a merging of hermeneutic horizons. If we follow Iser, who argues for the inescapable
necessity of establishing a text virtually, we can access the hermeneutic quality of this kind of communication between text and reader.
Now, the hermeneutic distance becomes significant for a postcolonial
reading practice, too. The reading of the tiger as a symbol might be an
,QGLDQ ZD\ RI LQWHUSUHWLQJ LW DW OHDVW +XJJDQ7LIILQ DQG %KDWWacharya seem to suggest that), but my individual reading refutes the
turning of the tiger into such a symbol as a form of othering.22
To take the work of art seriously may involve individual aesthetic
reactions that come into play with the supposed ways of reading the
DQLPDO,IWKHOLWHUDU\ZRUN DULVHVRXWRIWKHUHDGHUVRZQ social and
cultural background (Iser 2007: 63), then the tension between KaQDLVH[SODQDWLRQDQGP\RZQGLVJXVWat WKHWLJHUVWUHDWPHQWJDWKHUV
meaningful momentum in the making sense of the narrative. My impulse of disgust, however, does not lead to a refusal of other-thanWestern ecological ethics; it points to interpretive processes that neFHVVLWDWH D VHOI-reflective ambivalence over the ability to know the
other, thereby introducing an element of provisionality into any ecocritical reading (Cilano & DeLoughrey 2007: 76). This provisionality
22
That is of course not to say that an individual appraisal is not bound by cultural
contexts and socialisation. In fact, bringing oneself into a text requires an awareQHVVRIVXFKFRQWH[WVDQG,NQRZWKDWP\LQGLYLGXDODVVHVVPHQWLVERXQGWRDQG
shaped by a long history of discourses concerned with animals, the other and
compassion. However, the point is not to argue against the possibility of discourse
analysis but to bring in the individual hermeneutic situation, and to understand its
share in the production of meaning.
121
is a crucial element of my interpretations too, and I agree with Cara

Cilano and Elizabeth DeLoughrey that an ecocriticism that looks
WKURXJKWKHOHQVRISRVWFRORQLDOOLWHUDWXUHPXVWYHU\FULWLFDOO\HmSKDVL]HWKHUROHRI>OLWHUDU\@PHGLDWLRQDQGDUJXHDJDLQVWDXWKHQWLcity (Cilano & DeLoughrey 2007: 79). It becomes impossible to read
WKHWLJHUDXWKHQWLFDOO\LQVWHDGLWLVQHFHVVDU\WRUHO\RQRQHVSHrsonal emotive response, which is evoked by several narrative moments that trigger readerly empathy.
The passages quoted above are exemplary for such literary renderLQJVDQGWKHHPSDWKHWLFPRPHQWRIVKDULQJWKHFUHDWXUHVSDLQLVRQH
of the most obvious strategies for evoking a strong response from the
reader while at the same time making him or her aware of the spatial
distance that might play a role regarding different frames of interpretation. Such a tension, Hans Robert Jauss maintains, is crucial in any
reader-response approach. Jauss demands that
every work of literature be conceptualised with regard to specific, historically
conditioned expectations and [be] perceived with always renewing, historically
changing expectations and questions, so that conception, impact and study of the
OLWHUDU\ZRUNFDQRQO\EHSHUIRUPHGLQWHUPVRIDFRQWLQXRXVGLDORJXHRITXHsWLRQ DQG DQVZHU DQG DV DQ DSSUR[LPDWLRQ RU LQ WKH VHQVH RI +* *DGDPHUV
KHUPHQHXWLFV D PHUJLQJ RI WKH KRUL]RQV RI H[SHFtation. (Striedter 1971:
lxxii; my translation)
The text emplots the tension a symbolic reading of an empathetic encounter with the tiger entails. Thus, it allows for a reflexion of
postcolonial and hermeneutic epistemologies. In combination, a formoriented way of reading and an interpretation that relies on the indiYLGXDOVKDUHLQWKHSURGXFWLRQRIPHDQLQJFDQGHDOZLWKWKHVLOHQFH
around [the literary text] in the enabling matrix of what is commonly
FRQVLGHUHG D PXWH ODQG EXW LV DFWXDOO\ IXOO RI YRLFHV if we attune
ourselves to them (Westling 2006: 39). That a formalist-structuralist
reading can effectively and fruitfully be located in the larger context
of reader reception and understanding and, ultimately, also in the context of an ethically influenced project such as ecocritical interpretation, can thus easily be shown.23
23
Thus, the alleged conflict between formal analyses and hermeneutics can be left
behind 'DYLG +HUPDQ IRU LQVWDQFH VXJJHVWV WKDW LQVWHDG RI VHHLQJ VWUXFWXUDO
DQDO\VLV DV WKH KDQGPDLGHQ WR LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ : 30), postclassical reassessments contextualise narrative strategies successfully. Approaches of New Formalism argue in a similar vein (see Levinson 2007).
122
If we read the ensemble of characters (animals included) as a structural pattern of corresponding figural and actational means within the
narrative, the gap that emerges around the tiger would be significant in
several ways. While Gadamer maintains the necessity of a temporal
distance between text and actualisation because >W@HPSRUDO GLVWDQFH
[...] lets the true meaning of the object emerge fully*DGDPHU
298), here, with regard to postcolonial literature, it is the spatial and/or
cultural distance (exemplified by the conflict between supposed Western and Non-Western perspectives, or the individual focus and a culWXUDOLQRXWVLGHU-position) that forms an important gap. By the same
token, we can UHDVVHVV$WWULGJHVFODLPWKDW>H@YHQLIWKHSXUSRVHRI
reading a work is to reconstruct historical meaning [...] the words as
we read them produce their effects in the present (Attridge 2004b:
104; emphasis orig.). Attridge suggests that other interpretive stances
are possible, and so is an approach that reconstructs the tiger in terms
RIDIUDFWXUHG%HQJDOLSV\FKHsensu Bhattacharya. In the context of
EnvironMentality, however, this is not the decisive point. What needs
consideration here is that by reading across the different horizons, we
can use the literary potential of the text to transform the encounter of
RWKHUQHVV WKDW LW VWDJHV 'HVSLWH WKH WLJHUV VLOHQFH ZH UHDOLVH WKDW
>W@KHUH LV QR DEVROXWH RWKHU >@ ,I WKH RWKHU LV DOZD\V DQG RQO\
other to me [...], I am already in some relation to it (29; emphasis
orig.).
As an object of hermeneutic inquiry, the text exemplifies the conflict of Deep versus Social Ecology qua its figural setting and the
meaning conferred on the tiger. Just as Piya struggles to account for
WKHUROHRIWKHWLJHUDQGXOWLPDWHO\GRHVQRWDFFHSW.DQDLVVXJJHsWLRQWRUHDGWKHWLJHUIURPDQLQRXWVLGHUVSHUVSHFWLYHDVDPHUHWDUJHW
of revenge and instead imagines feeling its heartbeat), the implied
(Western) reader also struggles with the brutality against the animal.
7KLVUHDFWLRQVWDQGVDVDQH[DPSOHRIWKHGLHJHWLFOHDS(Bergthaller)
referred to above. A conflict on the level of the plot transcends
diegetic boundaries and is enacted extratextually and through readerresponses, following the same logic of tension that exists between
Deep and Social Ecologies. For a hypothetical :HVWHUQ UHDGHU WKH
QRYHOVVWDWXVDVDSRVWFRORQLDOWH[WWKXVSURYLGHVWKHYHU\VSDWLDOGLstance needed for the emergence of meaning, if ZHEURDGHQ*DGDPHUV
concept accordingly so as to engage with spatial as well as temporal
distances (see Reckwitz 2000: 19 for a similar argument).
123
With regard to the structural pattern as such, the tiger literally constitutes a fictional singularity, and its narrativisation is marked by an
H[WUDRUGLQDU\RQH-QHVVthat sets it apart both from the natural environment that it shares with humans and the human constellations which
are marked by a dichotomous and tripartite structure. In the first case,
the tiger motif hints at the cultural significance of the unspeakable
threat it stands for in the context of local human culture. In the second
case, the animal other is marked by a significant individualism which
forsakes any interpretation in terms of stereotype or stand-in function.
While the characters can be reduced to a specific function in the narrative, the tiger remains singled out, individual and opposed to a symbolic appropriation.
The tiger thus engenders a tension that stems from the idea of silence and his physical presence at the same time. The realistic description of the animal and its meaning in the context of the story as a
threat to people living in the Sundarbans does not exhaust the meaning
RI WKH FKDUDFWHU 7KH WLJHU LV QRW WKH V\PERO RI Sower relation and
SROLWLFVEXWDEUHDWKLQJVHQVLWLYHEHLQJZLWKDKHDUWEHDW%RWK3L\D
and Kanai from the beginning of the book appear as mouthpieces
rather than round characters. In fact, they can be read as metonymic
functions in the structural composition of the novel, standing first and
foremost for dualistic elements7KDWWKH WLJHULV WKHRQO\ FKDUDFWHU
resisting such a dualistic reading makes him important as a being as
such and renders a purely symbolic reading impossible. Since the tiger
does not speak and never becomes a focaliser, his significance is a
daring and subtle moment of ecocentrism. This ecocentric moment
depends on tensions rather than on the idea of undisputed harmony,
XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RU EHFRPLQJ ,QVWHDG RI realistically staging perceptions, the text establishes the tiger as something that is real as the
mute centre of the textual construction.
Read with a special focus on its structure, the narrative enables a
sense of environmental justice to emerge from the interpretive analysis of textual form. While human beings at least partially also function
as semantic stand-ins, it is the animal character the tiger who resists such an instrumentalisation. The focXV RQ D WH[WV FRQVWUXFWHdness unfolds this significance and its epistemological value in the
reading and making sense of the text. Negotiating the meaning of form
thus becomes a necessary aspect of the text, which in turn is concerned with negotiations on the level of its plot. The establishment of
literary, environmental justice and avenues for reading the animal
124
other rely on the interplay of structural construction and readerly interpretation. The interplay of narratological observation (how is the
text constructed?) and the focus of reception(s) (how does the text
affect its readers?) results in forms of understanding that directly relate to experiences of alterity.
This hermeneutic relation of self and other in the case of ecocriticism, expressed by the connection of world and individual perception
can EHOLQNHGWR5LFXUVQRWLRQRIHPSORWPHQW,QKLVPRQXPHQWDO
Time and Narrative5LFXUGHVFULEHVWKHUHODWLRQEHWZHHQWKHDFWLvity of narrating a story and the temporal character of human experience (1983: 52). 8QOLNH%XHOO5LFXUGHVFULEHVPLPHVLVLQWHUPVRI
the emplotment of experience and thereby turns his back on any idea
RI D UHDO OLWHUDO PLPHVLV IRU WKH VDNH RI D UHILQHG DFFRXQW RI WKH
imaginary interaction of world and individual experience with narraWLYHV+HDUJXHVWKDWWKHFRPSRVLWLRQRIWKHSORWLVJURXQGHGLQDSUHunderstanding of the world in action, its meaningful structures, its
symbolic resources, and its temporal character (54). :KLOH 5LFXU
maintains that the elements of such emplotting devices are structural,
symbolic and temporal, from an ecocritical perspective it is important
to add the spatial category and to point towards newer studies on spatial poetics and the negotiation of place and emplacement via narrative
patterns (see Hallet & Neumann 2009; Heise 2008).
)RU 5LFXU WKH V\PEROLFDOO\ SUHILJXUHG PLPHVLV1 is complemented by the configured world of mimesis2. In The Hungry Tide, this
world is narrated via the focalising technique I described above, and
WKXV QDWXUH FDQ EH understood not only as a narrative principle or
device but also as an active presence within the narrated world. It is
important to note that, although prefiguration already takes place in
mimesis1, it is on the level of mimesis2 that emplotment is established
as a PHGLDWLQJ RSHUDWLRQ WKDW GUDZVD FRQILJXUDWLRQRXW RID VLPSOH
succession (65). Mimesis2 WKXVPHGLDWHVLQ5LFXUVZRUGVEHWZHHQ
ZKDWSUHFHGHVILFWLRQDQGZKDWIROORZVLW (65) that is, world and
PLQG 5LFXU QRW RQO\ GHVFULEHV ZKDW ,VHU FDOOs WKH YLUWXDO GLPHnVLRQRIWKHWH[W (Iser 1974: 280), he also denies any simple referentiality for the sake of a dynamism that
lies in the fact that a plot already exercises, within its own textual field, an integrating and [...] a mediating function, which allows to bring about [...] a mediation
of a larger amplitude between the preunderstanding and, if I may dare to put it this
way, the postunderstanding of the order of action and its temporal features.
5LFXU
125
,Q GHVFULELQJ WKLV G\QDPLVP 5LFXU KHUH VHHPV WR GHVFULEH ZKDW ,
call, with regard to the ecocritical orientation of my study, the phenomenon of EnvironMentality, and I am convinced that not only can
the temporal dimension be addressed by narratives (although the character of plot surely helps us to understand why analyses have favoured
this element), but that the spatial dimension (or even a broader conception of being-in-the-world) is equally relevant.
This processual configuration of meaning is also at work in other
instances in The Hungry Tide, and I want to conclude the discussion
RI JDSV DQG WHQVLRQV E\ HQJDJLQJ ZLWK WKH RYHUWO\ VOLFN DQG KDSS\
HQGLQJWKDWDQXPEHr of reviewers have remarked on, as Gurr recounts (2010a: 75). Indeed, both from a perspective that focuses on
plausibility and with regard to the structural logic explained above, the
HQGLQJ LV SUREOHPDWLF 3L\DV EHKDYLRXU DSSHDUV WRR WKRURXJKO\
changed and ecologically FRUUHFW to be credible. What is more, if a
purely form-oriented reading practice has already helped to realise
what I call WKHWH[WVPRUDOHWKHVZD\LQJEHWZHHQRQHSROHDQGWKH
RWKHU DQG WKH IDFW WKDW OLIH LV OLYHG LQ WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ then this
forced closure on the level of the plot is at the least unnecessary, if not
GRZQULJKWIODW,ZDQWWRDUJXHKRZHYHUWKDWWKHQRYHOVHQGLQJMXVW
like the tiger encounter, can be read as a significant hermeneutic challenge with regard to the reader response, which in this case does not
revolve around shock and compassion as in the tiger scene. Instead,
the challenge lies in making sense of this form of closure. On the one
hand, readers might expect such a form of closure; the ending would
then be a concession to the market and the expectations of the readerVKLS 7KH FULWLFDO UHPDUNV RQ WKH IODZHG HQGLQJ VXJJHVW KRZHYHU
that the readership might not have welcomed this denouement. In both
cases, it is impossible to read the ending as the resolution of the numerous tensions and conflicts the text had addressed before rather, it
is necessary to juxtapose different possible readings.
The most obvious reading is that the text finally exemplifies its
thesis of understanding nature by having Piya adapt herself as well as
her life to the new task she had already envisioned when she first met
ZLWK WKH K\EULG GROSKLQV WKH ZRUN IRU D OLIHWLPH DQG DQ DOLEL IRU
OLIH (THT 125; 126). But another focus may be more productive: a
IRFXV RQ WKH VXJJHVWLYH IDOOLQJ DSDUW RI WKH OLWHUDU\ FRPSRVLWLRQ
(Gurr 2010a: 75) could take into account the unresolved tensions of
WKH VROXWLRQ SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH WH[W )URP WKDW SRLQW RI YLHZ D
126
narrative return to harmony after the human catastrophe that precedes

the last chapter can thus be read as a deliberate relinquishment of the
human concerns the novel only ostensibly narrates. The sheer improbDELOLW\RI3L\DVGHFLVLRQWRPRYHWRWKH6XQGDUEDQVEHIULHQG0R\QD
and so forth betrays a certain lack of interest in human psychology.
Instead, the characters fit the narrative principle of tidal ecology. Such
a reading dismisses double-coding strategies and clearO\PHHWV%XHOOV
GHPDQGWKDWKXPDQKLVWRU\LVLPSOLFDWHGLQQDWXUDOKLVWRU\DQGWKDW
WKHKXPDQLQWHUHVWLVQRWXnderstood to be the only legitimate interest (Buell 1995: 7). According to this reading, the characters must
simply obey the environmental circuit and the natural laws, which are
engendered narratively in terms of the alternating structure that had
been established in the novel.
A more moderate - and more anthropocentric reading may focus
on the structural falling-apart too, inasmuch as it raises the awareness
for the breakdown of the textual both/and construction. This reading
would, in lieu of readings that see the ending as an unconvincing appendix for the sake of closure, identify the harmony that is ultimately
established by the ending not so much as an easily achieved and hence
unconvincing closure but rather as the narrative linchpin: the whole
narrative serves as an explanation of how Piya finally finds her QLFKH
in the ecological biosphere and a cosmopolitan semiosphere. The story
is actually her narrative, and it is a narrative that highlights the idea
that becoming ecologically situated means becoming familiar with
loss and death too (see Tomsky 2009). Her story is affected by the
death of Fokir, ZKLFKEULQJVWRDQHQGKHUEHLQJWRUQEHWZHHQWKHRQH
DQGWKHRWKHU (THT 360) and it renders Piya the one character that
now combines the traits of the other characters and thus becomes a
IRUPRIK\EULGLQKDELWDQWDVZHOO
+HU PRVW LPSRUWDQW OHVVRQ DFFRUGLQJO\ OLHV LQ HVWDEOLVKLQJ D
VHQVHRIDQRWKHUQHVV a mode of existence that Patrick D. Murphy,
referring to Bakhtinian dialogics, understands as the means to overcoming Western, GLFKRWRPRXV WKLQNLQJ ZLWK %DNKWLQV FRQFHSW RI
answerability (Murphy 1998: 41; 49). Murphy discusses different
characters from a different novel, but Piya too has managed WRDYRLG
the pitfalls of both assuming too much similarity with the indigenous
peoples and experiencing too great a sense of difference to see relatedness (Murphy 1998: 49-50). As Piya learns to communicate with
Fokir, the reader takes part in a negotiation of anotherness and belonging. The preceding events would then have to be read as the steps
127
necessary for such an understanding, and the ending simply follows

the logic of emplotting such a sense of anotherness.
$FFRUGLQJO\ WKH QDUUDWLYH PRGH LV RQH RI YLUWXDO UHDOLVP D
realism that virtually encompasses lived experience, and propels it
into postmodern fiction, avoiding the depoliticization common in
PDJLFDO UHDOLVP (50). 0XUSK\ DUJXHV WKDW >S@DUW RI WKLV YLUWXDO
realism consists of the depiction of miraculous and mythic events as
part of the daily lived reality of the inhabitants of the community
(50). The moon rainbow, just as the epiphanic tiger encounters in the
narrative, are obvious examples of such miraculous and mythic events
DQGZKLOHRQHGRHVQRWKDYHWRIROORZ0XUSK\VDVVHVVPHQWRIPDJLFal realism, I think it is apparent that the text suggests a reciprocal understanding and cooperation of Western science and local custom via
QDUUDWLYHIRUPVWKDW0XUSK\FDOOVYLUWXDOUHDOLVW7KLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJ
and cooperation stands as another example of the nexus of miracles
and NQRZOHGJH without glossing over the pitfalls of understanding,
as Steinwand (2011: 195) makes clear.
Notwithstanding these two possible readings, the harmony remains
unsatisfying and incomplete , WKLQN WKDW =DSIV PRGHO RI literary
functions can help to explain this impression. According to his terminology, harmonisation is provided by the reintegrative interdiscourse.
But maybe the reintegrative-interdiscursive potential of the text lies
somewhere other than the ending altogether maybe it is the experience of the world-as-text? This experience does not rely on closure
because it is understood as an ongoing process. If that were the case,
the ending would work more as a critical meta- or counterdiscourse
that effectively exposes and questions the very need for closure. In a
different context but with impressive parallels, John Parham discusses
the OLWHUDU\ FORVXUH RI 9LFWRULDQ QRYHOV DV D V\VWHPDWLF H[SRVXUH RI
[their] own inadequacy (2011a: 7; see also 2011b). The same effect
shows in The Hungry Tide. It is of course very doubtful that this critical potential was conceived in the composition of the novel the ending seems rather to RZHWR D GLGDFWLFDOLPSXOVH RQ *KRVKV SDUW %\
describing the hermeneutic process of reading form as meaning, howHYHU , DP LQWHUHVWHG LQ KRZ D WH[W ZRUNV LQ WKH SRVWFRORQLDOecocritical context, and I try to describe a complex, successively
evolving process that does not at all rely on authorial intention. Such
critical negotiation also aIIHFWV WKH DVVHVVPHQW RI WKH QRYHOV UHDOLVW
mode. In fact, the whole idea of realism can be contested when we,
128
instead of praising it, engage in a discussion of the problems of realism.

It is from this perspective that it becomes interesting to see how
the problem of realism (as a crucial challenge in ecocritical debate and
one of the main questions that guide this study) can inform interpretation. This idea is anything but new. Roman Jakobson, for example,
understands realist devices as a compositional motive and discusses
their functions accordingly (Jakobson 1971; see also Striedter 1971:
lxvii). Realism, Jakobson emphasises, is simply one element among
many to achieving certain effects of verisimilitude and the impact of
this element depends on convention, readerly expectations, and a
WH[WVDIILOLDWLRQWRWKHOLWHUDU\FRQWH[W,QPDNLQJVXFKDFODLP-DNRbson
PDLQWDLQVWKDWDFKDQJLQJLGHDRIZKDWFRXQWVDVUHDORUUHDOLVWLFGHSHQGVERWK
on the polemical intention of the authors and their schools with regard to their
precursors and on the ideas and expectations that future readers lay on the production of different schools and systems. (Striedter 1971: lxix; my translation)
Jakobson describes the problems and characteristics of literary realism

and stresses its formal as well as its changing aesthetic character. By
focusing on both the restrictions of convention and literary tradition
and on the expectations of a readership that interacts with these conventions, challenges them and alters the quality and impact of aesthetic strategies, Jakobson discusses realism with regard to the complex set of implications of such a term. This helps to disentangle the
questions of ecocritical mimesis as well. According to this reading, the
reason why the novel has to end as it does is that it has to follow its
own generic logic. That it at the same time evokes a particular awareness of the shortcomings of this very logic must not be seen as a narrative flaw but as a tension that matters exactly because it remains unresolved. It therefore has a significant function as a comment on our
nave hopes for natural harmony. Realistic narrative and closure are
deconstructed just as they are contextualised with the supposed environmental meaning of the narrative.
Ultimately, the significance of the ending can be even better understood LI3L\DVGHFLVLRQWRPRYHWRWKH6XQGDrbans is left aside for a
PRPHQWDQGZHDJDLQIRFXVRQWKHWH[WVIRFDOLVDWLRQ,WLVUHPDUNDEOH
that in the last chapter Nilima is the focaliser. Throughout the narrative, she had been present via direct speech but has otherwise rePDLQHG UDWKHU YRLFHOHVV DV IDU DV KHU FRQVFLRXVQHVV LV FRQFHUQHG
129
This is because focalisers are less distant from the reader than a character represented in dialogue. While Nirmal is present through his
diary, his wife is only being narrated throughout the novel which is
LQVWDUNFRQWUDVWWRKHUFKDUDFWHU,QFRQWUDVWWR1LUPDOVGLVPLVVDORI
KLV ZLIH DV D SHUVRQ ZLWKRXW SRHWLF YLVLRQ KRZHYHU LW LV 1LOLPDV
pragmatism that stands for an effective, local, social-ecological engagement. Due to the narrative construction that puts her in the position of only being narrated, the tensions her perspective evokes are
unresolved for example, when she dismisses KanaiV argument that
the killings by tigers are caused by human population. She argues that
in the nineteenth century, equally large numbers of people were killed,
and she establishes her own narrative of the animals that have reacted
to their environment:
[T]KH WLGH FRXQWU\V WLJHUV ZHUH GLIIHUHQW IURP WKRVH HOVHZKHUH >] [T]his propensity came from the peculiar conditions of the tidal ecology, in which large
parts of the forest were subjected to daily submersions. The theory went that this
UDLVHGWKHDQLPDOVWKUHVKROGRIDJJUHVVLRQE\ZDVKLQJDZD\WKHLUVFHQWPDUNLQJV
and confusing their territorial instincts. (THT 241)
Her concerns for human beings remain pragmatic but at the same
time, she is keenly aware of the reductionist and inadequate nature of
scientific solutions for the dilemma. This is shown by her critical remarks on the scientific theories that tried to resolve the moral diOHPPDWKHWURXEOHZDVWKDWHYHQif it was true, there was nothing that
FRXOGEHGRQHDERXWLW, DQG>Z@LWKHYHU\IHZ\HDUVFDPHVRPHQHZ
theory and some yet more ingenious solution (241). She goes on to
criticise a theory by virtue of which it was decided to provide the tiJHUV ZLWK H[WUD ZDWHU Just imagine that! [...] In a place where nobody thinks twice aERXWKXPDQEHLQJVJRLQJWKLUVW\ (241). Despite
her emphatic criticism and the importance of her argument, all she
has, it seems, are the moments of speech that are given to her in the
sections where Kanai functions as the focaliser and that are staged as
scenic dialogue.
However, it is Nilima who has shaped the human settlement and
most of the SHRSOHVOLYHVLQ/XVLEDUL7KDWWKHQRYHOUHZDUGVWKLVZLWK
130
DODVWZRUG24 through her focalisation in the last chapter can therefore

be read as an optimistic remark on the necessity of pragmatism, which
must accompany every visionary and revolutionary ecological ethics.
That such an ending is literally prosaic (just as Nirmal criticised his
wife as being) is another truth to be incorporated in the dialogical net
of environmental truths, and it highlights another side of the coin of
the ecological conscience established in the novel. While the tidal
rhythm had governed the overall narrative and thus maintained an
ecocentric orientation and tone, the ending can now be read as a harmonising emplotment of ecocentric and anthropocentric environmentalist notions because, XOWLPDWHO\1LOLPDVSUDJPDWLVPOHDGVEDFNWR
KXPDQUHVSRQVLELOLW\DQGSURVDLFDFWLRQ
/DZUHQFH %XHOOV FODLP WKDW >O@DQJXDJH QHYHU UHSOLFDWHV H[WUDtextual landscapes, but it can be bent towDUG RU DZD\ IURP WKHP
(Buell 2008: 33) FDQWKXVEHUHILQHG:KLOH%XHOOVSHDNVRIDFHUWDLQ
NLQG RI HQYLURQPHQWDO UHIHUHQWLDOLW\ (2), which he fails to describe
exactly, one must rather speak of the need to find the right means of
DGGUHVVLQJWKDWZKLFK LV7KHPHDQLQJRIUHDOLW\FDQEHDSSURSULDWHG
by mimetic description, but it can also be described with the help of
abVWUDFW \HW more significant VHH -DNREVRQ metaphors
and discourses. The crucial element is the challenge of our perception.
Realistic depiction in the ecocritical context may therefore have funcWLRQHGDVDGHIRUPDWLon of existing artistic canones (see 377) for
example, by reading nature writing in the context of the postmodern
fashion of the 1980s and 90s. However, there is no reason why this
deliberate deformation should be restricted to mimetic description.
Nor is realistic writing the only means to write about reality. By deVFULELQJGLIIHUHQWOHYHOVRIUHDOLVPVVLJQLILFDQFHDVFRQYHQWLRQQDrrative strategy and with regard to the reading public at any one time),
Jakobson offers a framework by means of which a narratologically
oriented analysis can discuss questions of mimesis and representation.25
24
25
It may seem contradictory that I understand speech (in a dialogue) as a form of

voicelessness while regarding IRFDOLVDWLRQ DV D IRUP RI ODVW ZRUG *LYHQ WKH
WH[WV preoccupation with focalisation, however, I think this idea is justified,
especially in the context of the relations between focalisation and environmental
mimesis explained above.
Grard Genette has seconded this view of mimesis and likewise stresses the interSUHWLYH UROH LQ SHUFHLYLQJ UHDOLVP >0@LPHVLV ZLOO WKXV QHYHU EH DQ\WKLQJ PRUH
than an illusion of mimesis, depending like every illusion on a highly variable
131
In a different context, Monika Fludernik argues that

[n]o immediate access to the natural nor a naive reduction of the natural to pure
undiluted Otherness can any longer claim legitimacy so that a theoretical approach that exploits the concept of the natural needs to clarify its own position.
(1996: 3)
6KH DOVR SRLQWV WR WKH IDFW WKDW QDWXUH DQG WKH QDWXUDO UHTXLUH the
most insistent signification by means of (artificial) signifiers just as
the supposedly mimetic representation of direct discourse is constituted by a maximum of artificial markers of alterity (4). 1DWXUDO
elements of narrative can, accordingly, be identified and deconstructed
quite easily and, I would like to add, so can narratives about nature.26
7KDWWKHWLJHUVVHQWLHQFHFDQEHGLVFXVVHGIRUH[DPSOHHYHQWKRXJK
it is not staged HFRPLPHWLFDOO\, and despite the fact that the tiger is
never the focaliser, is due to the importance of interpretive movement.
It underlines the value of a hermeneutical engagement with the worldas-text. This is why the narrative can sharpen an awareness of the
significance of perception in the process of establishing meaning. The
WLJHUV VLOHQFH DQG WKH FRPSOHWH DEVHQFH RI SHUVSHFWLYH EHFRPH VLgnificant in this context. The most elegant comment that the text makes
about nature is the admission of rigorous muteness. It means that
nature is assigned a double status, quite in accordance with what has
been said about double-FRGLQJ LW LV QDWXUH RXW WKHUH EXW LW LV DOVR
formed by semiotic processes, and it thus constitutes a narrative principle but remains an elusive presence within the text. Thus, nature
becomes the unspeakable centre around which plot, narrative and
meaning evolve.
%XHOOVUDWKHUYDJXHFODLPRIDWH[WVHQYLURQPHQWDOLW\FDQQRZ
be substantiated. The claim WKDWVSHFLILFHQYLURQPHQWDO, textual traits
exist must be reformulated as it is the awareness of an interplay
26
relationship between the sender and the receiver. It goes without saying, for example that the same text can be received by one reader as intensely mimetic and
by another as an onl\VOLJKWO\H[SUHVVLYHDFFRXQW: 165). Unlike Genette,
I do not explain this divergence historically but contextualise these different
perceptions with regard to EnvironMentality: not only do different readers perceive differently, different readings let the same reader perceive things differently
by virtue of the hermeneutical process I am describing.
$Q H[DPSOH RI VXFK D GHFRQVWUXFWLRQ RI VXSSRVHGO\ QDWXUDO QDUUDWLYHV FDQ EH
IRXQGLQ0RUWRQVGLVFXVVLRQRIHFRPLPHVLVDVIDQWDV\6HH0RUWRQ(2009: 637).
132
EHWZHHQWKHWH[WVGHHSDQGVXUIDFHVWUXFWXUHs and the meaning realised by its readers that lead to the effect pointed to by diverse concepts
VXFKDVGHFHQWULQJUHFHQWULQJ+HDGDQGWKHH[SHULHQFHRIDOWHULW\
(Attridge). Moreover, it is not a moral lesson or factual knowledge
that can be derived from reading ecocritically; in fact, it is not even
possible, ultimately, WRUHOLHYHWKHVLOHQFHWKDW:HVWOLQJGHVFULEHVDV
WKH PXWH ODQG WKDW HQYHORSV OLWHUDWXUH (2006: 39). On the contrary,
literature helps us to experience this silence so that in the postcolonialecocritical context, reading the world-as-text points to the necessity of
D PRUH FRQWLQJHQW >@ DQG FDXWLRXV KHUPHQHXWLFV, as DeLoughrey
and Handley claim (2011b: 29). Since no definite features that qualify
DVJHQXLQHPDUNHUVRIHQYLURQPHQWDOLW\FDQEHLGHQWLILHGWKHidea of
HQYLURQPHQWDO textual traits must therefore be reconceptualised:
reading ecocritically does not rely on textual environmentality
rather, the meaning we are looking for emerges in the hermeneutic
process of EnvironMentality.
4.3 Towards a Cautious Hermeneutics

The observations and interpretive efforts above have shown that
(postcolonial) ecocriticism can profit from the fact that by letting our
gaze wanderVHH,VHU through the novel, we encounter a
multitude of voices orchestrated within the narrative discourse. In the
process of interpretation, these voices can be linked to the idea of ecological meaning and environmental tropes but they do not suggest
any monolithic truth. That is to say, these voices, and the novelistic
discourse in general, do not imply a preselected ethical stance or a
moral judgement; on the contrary, what literature engenders is the
possibility to experience tensions and negotiations of meaning. It is
WKHUHIRUHDV.DWH5LJE\FODLPVRQO\E\LQVLVWLQJRQWKHOLPLWVRIWKH
te[W >@ DV DQ DWWHPSWHG PHGLDWLRQ WKDW ZH FDQ XQGHUVWDQG WKHUH LV
QRVXEVWLWXWHIRURXURZQHPERGLHGLQYROYHPHQWZLWKWKHPRUH-thanhuman natural world (2004: 440). As we experience the emplotment
of nature, we also experience the literary work as a mediation, and as
we discover different ways of reading the world-as-text and engage
ZLWK WKH RWKHUQHVV RI ERWK OLWHUDWXUH DQG WKH QDWXUDO ZRUOG ZH Uespond to its singularity, as Attridge argues (2004b: 130).
EnvironMentality therefore has more to do with the harmonising
process of interpretation than with moments of closure and harmony
133
in a text, and it relies on the power of interpretation to encounter

RWKHUQHVV DQG WR XQGHUVWDQG WKDW >L@I WKH RWKHU LV DOZD\V DQG RQO\
other to me [...], I am already in some relation to it (Attridge 29; emphasis orig.). In terms of this hermeneutic orientation, EnvironMentality as the product of literary discourses and individual reading practices is capable of harmonising the various discursive elements that a
text containV7KLV HQFRPSDVVHV DQ H[SORUDWLRQRI RQHVRZQ KHUPeneutic situation and horizon. Thus, reading literature allows us to experience literary translation, that is, the fact that by reading, we encounter and interpret what Gadamer calls tKH VKDULQJ LQ D common
meaning (1994: 292). Notably, The Hungry Tide offers numerous
comments on the trope of translation, which add to what has been said
here, and I want to conclude my interpretation by looking at the various moments by means of which the text stages the idea of translation
and interpretation.
With regard to the Indian novel in English, Mukherjee claims that
WKH GLVWLQFWLYH OLWHUDULQHVV (2010: 12) of these novels can be described when the numerous discourses they integrate are considered.
On the one hand, he argues that these novels in general and The
Hungry Tide in particular integrate heterogeneous discourses and
extraliterary cultural practices such as dance, music and photography,
ZKLFK FRQVWLWXWH WKH FXOWXUal matrix of contemporary India (12).
This heterogeneity, he claims, accounts for the hybridisation of what
he calls the particular configuration of the [uneven] postcolonial
environment. On the other hand, he states that by virtue of this
JHQHULF KHWHURJORVVLD HDFK RI WKH QRYels in question exaggeratedly
SHUIRUPVLWVRZQILFWLRQDOLW\DQGWKXVEHFRPHVDOLWHUDU\VLQJXODULW\
in the postcolonial-ecocritical context (12). This is very much in line
with my argument because the endeavour to integrate various forms of
expression is a crucial element for the emplotment of the environment
in terms of a world-as-text. EnvironMentality entails a harmonisation
RIWKHWHQVLRQEHWZHHQZRUOGDQGWH[WDQGEHWZHHQQDWXUHDQGKuman beings. Between these respective poles, narratives mediate and
WUDQVODWH DQG WKXV HYHQWXDOO\ DOORZ IRU D VKDULQJ LQ FRPPRQ PHDnLQJ 7KDW The Hungry Tide is deeply concerned with a narrative
vision of ecological understanding and cosmopolitan dwelling has
been argued here as well as in numerous works on the subject (see
Kaur 2007; Mukherjee 2006; Sen 2009; Johansen 2008; Weik 20067). These ideas, however, can also be read in the larger context of
hermeneutic understanding, and the motifs and tropes by means of
134
which these ends are pursued can be found in the ubiquitous hints to
translation and intertextual references.
Following both Sandra Meyer (forthcoming) and Christopher Rollason (2005) , VHH WKH WURSH RI WUDQVODWLRQ DQG WKH QRYHOV FRQVWDQW
concern for transcultural communication as an intertextual and
metanDUUDWLYH GHYLFH WR DFFRXQW IRU WKH SUREOHP RI WUDQVODWLRQ LQ D
hybrid society (Meyer: n.p.). In her description of the ways the novel
LQWHJUDWHV5DLQHU0DULD5LONHVDuino Elegies on the one hand and the
local myth of Bon Bibi on the other, Sandra Meyer describes these
two textual elePHQWVDVGLDPHWULFDOO\RSSRVHG, but states:
:KHUHDV 5LONHV WH[W LV WUDQVQDWLRQDOO\ DFFODLPHG DQG KDV EHHQ WUDQVODWHG LQWR
various languages, the local story is primarily passed on orally from one generation to the other. >@+RZHYHULWEHFRPHVFOHDULQWKHHQGLQJRIWKHQRYHOWKDW
this clear distinction between the two intertexts is no longer valid. (n.p.)
Not only is this distinction rendered invalid; in fact, the very engagement with these two types of literature creates a number of interpretive challenges that question, for example, the idea of Western
canonical literature (Rilke), and that maintain the role of heteroglot
textuality.
The inclusion of Rilke in particular adds significant semiotic power
in the context of The Hungry Tide as an Indian novel in English beFDXVH5LONHFDQEHUHDGDVD:HVWHUQFDQRQLFal writer but also in the
sense of a postcolonial, ecological conscience. Ramachandra Guha,
for instance, describes Rilke in Environmentalism: A Global History
(1999) as one of the patron saints of German environmental thinking,
which lead the historian Joachim Radkau, author of the German pendant Die ra der kologie (7KH (UD RI (FRORJ\), to express his
DPD]HPHQWDERXWWKLVEROGEXWDUELWUDU\FKRLFHWKDWLncludes poetry
and leaves out Greenpeace altogether (Radkau 2011: 12; my translation). *XKDV FKRLFH RI 5LONH VXJJHVWV WKDW 5LONHV SRHWU\ PD\ KDYH
been re-appropriated into the context of environmentalist thinking in
India, and its appearance LQ*KRVKVQRYHOoffers an interpretive challenge as to ZKHWKHU WR UHDG LW DV DQ LQVWDQFH RI :HVWHUQ FDQRQLFal
hegemony or as a form of shared literary meaning. This tension has
been discussed in Chapter 4.2, and it underlines the significance of the
reDGHUVKHUPHQHXWLFVLWXDWLRQ
7KDW VXFK DQ DZDUHQHVV RI RQHVLQGLYLGXDO KHUPHQHXWLF VLWXDWLRQ
is crucial is emphasised by the characters, too. Being an interpreter by
profession, Kanai embodies the motif of translation and the dangers of
135
the power of traQVODWLRQ.XVXP)RNLUVZLIHUHDOLVHVWKLVZKHQVKH

DVNV.DQDLWRWDONWR3L\DDERXW)RNLU,WV\RXZKRVWDQGVEHWZHHQ
them: whatever they say to each other will go through your ears and
your lips. [...] Their word will be in your hands and you can make
them mean what you will (THT 257). Eventually, however, he relinquishes this power and instead uses his skills as a translator to work
on a translation/interpretation of the local myth of Bon Bibi, which he
presents as a gift to Piya. This translation is cautious rather than bold,
and it is not a monolithic re-appropriation of local meaning at all. It
becomes meaningful because Kanai acknowledges that his translation
LVIODZHG6XFKIODZVDVWKHUHDUHLQP\UHQGLWLRQRILW,GRQRWUHJUHW
for perhaps they will prevent me from fading from sight as a good
translator should (354). Contrary to his earlier behaviour and interest
in the power of a translator, Kanai, after his encounters with the world
and culture of the Sundarbans, acquires humility and a sense of the
unspeakability of the environment.
3L\DLQWXUQFRPELQHVWKLVWH[WXDOIUDJPHQWZLWK)RNLUVVLQJLQJ
of the same story, since it is in song that the narrative enables her to
feel the environment it depicts. This becomes possible EHFDXVH WKH
language and the music were all around her, flowing like a river, and
all of it made sense; she understood it all (360). The VWRU\Vmeaning,
Piya understands, lies in the interplay of rendition, situatedness and
the environment itself. Just as with my approach of merging narrative
strategies and issues of content, it is by virtue of a combination of
.DQDLVDUWLVWLFHQGHDYRXUV, the environmental situatedness, and individual textual experience that Piya ultimately understands myth, environment and its dialogical nature >D@OWKRXJK WKH VRXQG RI WKH
YRLFHZDV)RNLUVWKHPHDQLQJZDV.DQDLV (360). Piya harmonises
the discursive elements of the myth, and she can do so because she
and Kanai have become aware of their hermeneutic situations and
because interpretation is staged not only as a translational act but also
as a dialogic engagement with the environment.
That is to say, while critics have commonly interpreted it in terms
of transcultural understanding, the trope of translation can, in an ecocritical context, also be read in terms of an understanding of nature.
$OWKRXJKWKHOLQHVUK\PHG>@WKH\GLGQRWDSSHDUWREHYHUVHWKH\
flowed into each other, being broken only by slashes and asterisks. In
other words they looked like prose and read like verse, a strange
136
hybrid (THT 247).27 This is how Nirmal describes the myth of Bon
Bibi,28 and the closeness to the above descriptions of the landscape is
VWULNLQJVLQFHWKHPXGEDQNVRIWKHWLGHFRXQWU\DUHVKDSHGQRWRQO\
by rivers of silt, but also by rLYHUV RI ODQJXDJH; THT 247). By describing discursive hybridity not only as a postcolonial phenomenon
but in terms of environmental emplotment, the narrative connects this
idea of hybridised story-WHOOLQJ ZLWK WKH HQYLURQPHQWV SDOLPSVHVWLF
texture. Robert Young writes that, as it suggests a careful engagement
with meaning, literary hybridity RIIHUV FKDOOHQJHV UDWKHU WKDQ VROutions [...] and allows its audiences themselves to interpret its new
spaces with relevant meanings of their own (2003: 74). These spaces
can be understood as semiotic ones, but they can also stand for actual
places, such as Garjantola or the tidal environment of the Sundarbans
in general. Thus, the narrative on various levels redraws or blurs the
conceptual and spatial borders with which it engages.
3RVWFRORQLDOK\EULGLW\DQGHYHQIRUPVRIZULWLQJEDFNcan be reconfigured in terms of the larger scope of narrating the environment.
While constantly shifting borders in an environment that changes form
rapidly and continually, nature seems to be the only constant. Not only
is this idea staged by means of the tidal rhythm, but it appears on various levels. For example, the invisible but nevertheless crucial dividing
line between the area of human settlement and the realm of Dokhin
Rah remains an important boundary that structures the whole
27
28
Notably, this mode resembles the prose-poetical writing of Rabindranath Tagore,

which is called gadyakabita. Dipesh Chakrabarty explains that whilst translating
,QGLDQ SRHWU\ LQWR (QJOLVK 7DJRUH UHDOLVHG WKH SRWHQWLDO RI UK\WKPLF SURVH WR
make his point about the specific relationship between the poetic and the real
(bastab
,QWKHFRQWH[WRI1LUPDOVQDUUDWLYHhybridity gains further significance as a trope
of hope and longing because this merging of prose and poetry is exactly what
Nirmal seems to have been looking for, and not only with regard to the environPHQW[M]y wife and the woman [KXVXP@ZKRKDGEHFRPHWKHPXVH,d never
had; between the quiet persistence of everyday change and the heady excitement
of revolution between prose and poetry (THT 216). Note also that in the con
text of hybridity, the narrative of Bon Bibi follows the same idea of blurred marJLQVDVWKHHQYLURQPHQWWKHSDJHVRSHQHGRQWKHULJKWDVLQ$UDELFQRWWRWKH
left, as in Bangla. Yet the prosody was that of much Bangla folklore: the legend
was recounted in a verse called dwipodi poyar with rhymed couplets in which
each line is roughly of twelve syllables, each with a break, or caesura, towards
the middle(247).
137
semiosphere within the narrative.29 However, and as argued above, the

idea and presence of nature are fragmented in numerous ways and
appear as a fundamental frame (as narrative mediator) and a textual
echo (contained in various intertexts and mediated by different focalLVHUV RU WKH ZRUGV RI 5LONH WKDW DSSHDU LQ 1LUPDOV OHWWHUV, which in
turn are read by Kanai). Ultimately, and despite its ubiquitous presence, nature keeps its elusiveness and silence at the centre of the narrative. That is to say, while nature and textuality appear as inextricably bound and nature presents a form of agency that structures the
whole novel, the text does not suggest that by reading the world, we
understand nature at all. Nature is the centre; human and nonhuman
lives revolve around it. And human beings try to relate to this by
means of interpretation.
The value and role of translation and interpretation are negotiated
on various levels. Emplotted as motifs within the text, they eventually
evolve into a trope that informs the textual whole. While the motifs
are subjected to constant negotiation and challenges regarding their
interpretive validity, the trope of interpretation supports the idea of
EnvironMentality since it hints at the practice of reading the world-astext. In Chapter 4.1, I commented on the harmony established by the
QDUUDWLYH RI )RNLU DQG 3L\DV MRLQW DWWHPSW WR gather data and catch
crabs. Their collaboration is an example of how the novel stages transODWLRQDVDPRWLIEHFDXVH3L\DLVDEOHWRLQWHUSUHW)RNLUVDFWLRQs and
thus profit from a mutual understanding of scientific and nonscientific notions. It is PiyaV HPSDWK\ WKDW HVWDEOLVKHV D FRQQHFWLRQ
with Fokir, and in that she takes his needs seriously, she is eventually
DEOHWRH[SODLQ)RNLUVUHOLDQFHRQFUDEVLQD:HVWHUQVFLHQWLILFZD\
in the best academic-ecological manner, Piya realises that the crabs
DUHLQIDFWWKHNH\VWRQHspecies of the entire ecosystem (THT 142).
The crab-motif is thus translated into the context of a Western environmentalist/ecological discourse (see Crane 2011). At the same time,
however, Piya sees sentiment and empathy as accounting for their
success, when she ponders upon the fact that
it had proved possible for two such different people to pursue their own ends simultaneously people who could not exchange a word with each other and had
29
For the notion of the semiosphere and the idea that the narrative dynamics depends to a large extent on the tension within a binary structure of spatial organisation, see Lotman (1990: 121-214) and Lotman (1977).
138

QRLGHDRIZKDW ZDV JRLQJRQLQRQHDQRWKHUVKHDGV [this] was far more than
surprising: it seemed almost miraculous. (THT 141)
3L\DVGHYHORSPHQWLVWZRIROGRQWKHRQHKDQG she learns to unGHUVWDQG)RNLUVHQYLURQPHQWLQHFRORJLFDOWHUPVRQWKHRWKHU KDQG

science is reduced to being just one means of communication while
WKH PLUDFXORXV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ZLWKRXW ZRUGV UHPDLQV SRVVLEOH
Nature, however, is not just another discourse. Both translation and
non-discursive forms of understanding are possible. This underwrites
WKH HFRFULWLFDO SRVLWLRQ EH\RQG poststructuralism. As Zapf puts it,
ecocriticism maintains a IRFXVRQWKHLQWHUDFWLRQDQGLQWHUUHODWHGQHVV
of culture and nature without neglecting the inescapable linguistic and
GLVFXUVLYHPHGLDWHGQHVVRIWKDWLQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS-2). A perspective that incorporates both aspects and thus harmonises the either/or scheme described above is surely a helpful one (see also
Campbell 1996).
,QDILUVWUHDGLQJRIWKHILJXUDOFRQVWHOODWLRQ,LGHQWLILHGWKHWKUHeQHVVRIWKHPDLQSURWDJRQLVWVDVDVWUXFWXUDO rupture of the narrative
dualisms. In a second step, I commented on the emergence of multiple
meanings when the interpretation is read against the structural signifiFDQFHWKDWOLHVLQWKHFKDUDFWHUVbecoming one, on the one hand and in
their apartness from the ecosystem in general, on the other. Now, and
given this account of the miraculous mutual understanding,30 the mediating role of language is questioned as Piya begins to dismiss it as
LQFDSDEOH RI HQJHQGHULQJ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ VSHHFK ZDV RQO\ D EDJ RI
tricks that fooled you into believing that you could see through the
eyes of another being (THT 159).
Although acutely aware of the shortcomings of linguistic mediation, the characters repeatedly seek and acquire ways to communicate.
Accordingly, the idea that understanding is fostered by dialogue and
mutual support can be found in various places in the text. One night,
Piya wakes to a roaring sound that she cannot explain (157-9). In the
preceding chapter, Kanai hears the roar of a tiger. While Piya is only
sensually aware of the animal, Kanai names it and verbalises his
30
7KHUHLVPRUHHYLGHQFHIRUWKHK\SRWKHVLVWKDW3L\DVHPSDWK\DFWXDOO\KHOSVKHU
to learn about and understand the ecosystem. Watching the sleeping Fokir and
7XWXOVKHUHDOLVHVWKDWWKHUK\WKPRIWKHLUEUHDWKLQJUHPLQGHGKHURIWKHSDLURI
GROSKLQVVKHKDGEHHQZDWFKLQJHDUOLHUTHT 138) and the motif of breathing is
later echoed when Piya is confronted with both the heavily breathing bird and the
tiger in the storm.
139
perception; it is on the level of the narration that both aspects are

united. Kanai in this chapter represents once more a linguistic-cultural
angle while Piya tends to empathise with the animals around her, and
the narrative construction suggests a mutual completion of both perspectives.31
It is important to note that by establishing this form of environmental translation on the level of the narration rather than on the level
RIWKHFKDUDFWHUVFRQVFLRXVQHVVes, the environmental meaning of The
Hungry Tide relies not on closure but on its narrative form. Instead of
a transcultural, cosmopolitan understanding of the cultural other, the
novel thus allows for the acceptance of the natural other in terms of
WKH LGHD RI D FDXWLRXV KHUPHQHXWLFV 'H/RXJKUH\ +DQGOH\ 32
Accordingly, one of the most effective literary events is the staging of
nature as the silent centre.
In The Hungry Tide intertextuality looms large because Ghosh
TXLWH REYLRXVO\ XVHV 5LONHV SRHWU\ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WH[WXDO GLalogicity. It thus works as a metanarrative comment on translation. As
Meyer points out, the Duino Elegies, which are quoted in numerous
chapters, were originally written in German so the text is twice translated: the reader of The Hungry Tide is confronted with an English
translation of the Bangla version Kanai is said to be reading. Meyer
contrasts the ElegiesUHFXUUHQWWKHPH>@RIDOLHQDWLRQDQGGHSULYaWLRQZLWKits IXQFWLRQLQWKHQDUUDWLYHDQGVKHDUJXHVWKDW.DQDLLntegrates [the Rilke quotation] subconsciously into his own reflection
(n.p.). Intertextual syncretism in The Hungry Tide not only adds to the
semantic density of the narrative, it is capable of transforming a charDFWHUVFRQVFLHQFHEHFDXVHLWbrings to the fore the tensions and challenges of translation.33
31
32
33
Arguably, this distinction between a feeling female character and a logocentristically verbalising male character could be criticised from an ecofeminist position.
It must be noted, however, that this constellation is opposed with 3L\DDQG)RNLUV
relationship: here, it is Piya who represents a logocentric, scientific and Western
V\VWHP ZKLOH )RNLU FRXOG EH VHHQ DV VWDQGLQJ IRU WKH QDWXUDO ZRUOG DQG QREOH
VDYDJHU\ 7KHUHIRUH WKH FRnstant shifting between these dualist representations
effectively questions the very dualisms.
This reading also questions the cosmopolitan optimism that prevails in the critiFLVP RI 3L\DV FKDUDFWHU DQG LW FRQVLGHUV 7LPRWK\ %UHQQDQV (1997) critical assessment of cosmopolitanism as an ideological weapon of Western cultural elites.
Again, this tension can be felt extratextually as well. For readers familiar with the
German version of the Elegies, it is remarkable that the English translation is
inaccurate at a point that directly hints at the ambivalences of interpretation: the
140
In conclusion, and by moving from intertextual to intratextual

references, I want to discuss Chapter 65, where nature is depicted
once more as the unspeakable centre. The storm manifests itself literally as a singularity in which ultimately all narrative elements are
merged by means of various accounts of parallelisation. Thus, on a
V\PEROLFDQGLQWUDWH[WXDOOHYHOLWLVUHPDUNDEOHWKDWQDWXUHVSHDNVLQ
the same way that the tiger the other unspeakable presence
VSHDNVWKHGHHSHar-VSOLWWLQJUXPEOH (THT 378-9) of the wind is
IROORZHGE\WKHURDURIZDWHUDSSURDFKLQJ (383). Just as WKHWLJHUV
representation parallels the natural environment, the dichotomy of
land and water is deconstructed as the storm blurs all boundaries and
ERUGHUV 3L\DV DQG.DQDLV SHUFHSWLRQV DUH XQLILHG DQG ERWK VHH WKH
storm affect the land simultaneously. Kanai realises that water and air
EHFRPHRQHZKHQKHVHHVWKDWWKHVN\ZDVQRWXQLIRUPO\GDUN>@,W
was as though the sky had become a dark-tinted mirror for the waters
of the tide-country, with their myriad cross-cutting currents, eddies
and whirlpools. It is not only the different elements of the landscape that are violently brought together; when the storm howls
around Piya and Fokir, Piya first sees a couple of branches, then a
whole piece of mangrove forest and ultimately, the shrine of Bon Bibi
flying around her (see 382). In this vortex, the text seems to suggest
that all is one, and natural and cultural artefacts are likewise subjected
WRQDWXUHVSRZHU
There follows DEULHIPRPHQWRIUHOD[DWLRQLQWKHVWRUPVH\H for
Piya that in turn brings to mind 3L\DV H[SHULHQFH RIIDOOLQJ LQWRWKH
ULYHU LQ WKH QRYHOV HLJKWK FKDSWHU 6QHOOV :LQGRZ. While in that
chapter, Piya views the sunlight above her from below the muddy
ZDWHUVWKLVSHUVSHFWLYHLVHQODUJHGZKHQLQWKHVWRUPVH\HVKHLV
amazed by what she [sees]. A full moon hung above them atop what seemed to be
a whirling stovepipe that reached far into the heavens. The light of the moon,
shining through this spinning tube, illuminated the still centre of the storm. (388)
By this parallel construction, the novel combines the first sight of

sunlight from the water with the idea of seeing moonlight through the
stormy air, which is then to be read as the window into nature as such,
WKHVWLOOFHQWUH,WLVWKHFHQWUHDURXQGZKLFKDOOOLIHLVrevolving, and
arbitrary distinctions of nature and culture are rendered meaningless.
*HUPDQgedeutete WeltLQWHUSUHWHGZRUOGEHFRPHVWUDQVODWHGZRUOGLQWKH
translation by A. Poulin, which Ghosh cites in his novel. See also Crane (2011).
141
But the text makes quite clear that no more than a glimpse of this is
possible.
Ultimately, the numerous perspectives and the different narrative
directions all seem to be silenced in this moment of oneness. It is in
this moment of closest contact with the centre of nature and, thus, life,
that the narrative confronts us with its visions of mutual understanding. At the same time, it presents the image of a mute centre from
which the transformations that affect the land, and that are invoked
UHSHDWHGO\ DUH HQJHQGHUHG )RNLU DQG 3L\D EHFRPH RQH DV HYHUywhere their bodies met, their skin was joined by a thin membrane of
VZHDW (THT 383) and so do Piya and the animals around her the
bird that she is able to touch and, most importantly, the tiger that she
is able to empathise with. On the level of the narrative perspective,
however, it is remarkable that the alternating focalisation between
Piya and Kanai is working perfectly again; just as the merging of perspectives did not accompany but rather prefigured the storm, the storm
seems to have brought the narrative back into its original balance. On
a narrative level, this structure reflects once more the textual moralH
WKDWWUDQVformation is the rule of life (224). This idea is translated in
many ways: LQWR WKH ODQJXDJH RI QDWXUH IRU H[DPSOH DQG Lnto the
narrative structure of the novel.
By virtue of the tension between mutual understanding and the
ambiguous role of translation, The Hungry Tide emplots the contingency and dangers of an interpretation in terms of transcultural, cosmopolitan and environmental knowledge. It thus engenders a sense of
WKH QHHG IRU D FDXWLRXV KHUPHQHXWLFV WKDW FRQVLGHUV D WHQVLRQ >@
EHWZHHQ WKH >@ WH[WV VWUDQJHQHVV DQG IDPLOLDUity (Gadamer 1994:
295),34 and readers are made aware of their hermeneutic situation as a
VWDQGSRLQW WKDW Oimits the possibility of vision (302). In addressing
these limitations and the gaps discussed in my interpretation as a hermeneutic challenge, EnvironMentality can be defined as a negotiation
of textual form and meaning demarcated by an individual horizon. It is
essential now to broaden this horizon.
34
4XLWHLQOLQHZLWK3L\DVH[SHULHQFHDQGP\UHDGLQJRI The Hungry Tide, GadaPHU VWDWHV WKDW the true locus of hermeneutics is this in-between 1994: 295;
emphasis orig.).
5. Facets of EnvironMentality
As Wolfgang Iser maintains, with literary theory, readers can discern
literar\PHDQLQJE\ YLUWXHRIPDSSLQJ (see Iser 2006: 5). The preceding chapter has indeed sought to map sources of what Buell deVFULEHV DV WH[WXDO environmentality %XHOO . Instead of
WKLQNLQJ RIHQYLURQPHQWDOLW\DVDWH[WXDO JLYHQ KRZHYHU my reading of The Hungry Tide has delineated a process of engaging with the
form and content of literature via interpretation and described the interpretive negotiations of gaps and tensions in terms of a hermeneutic
process. The result of this process, which acNQRZOHGJHVWKHliterary
event as an encounter with alterity, I have termed EnvironMentality.
That is to say, EnvironMentality emerges as a result of negotiations:
the aporias of reading nature, the tensions of reality and the challenge
of talking about truth in the plural all constitute the experience of
reading environmental texts. I have argued that in our dealing with
nature, and with postcolonial environments in particular, the concept
of alterity can help to discuss the singularity of literature as well as the
world-as-text. Accordingly, and rather than providing for an exhaustive reading, the last chapter has opened up several avenues for interSUHWDWLRQ$QGLQVWHDGRISURYLGLQJDXQLYRFDOGHILQLWLRQRIWKHHQYLURQPHQWDOWH[WLWKDVH[SORUHGWKHFRQFHSWRIEnvironMentality in the
process of reading.
What has EHFRPH FOHDU WRR LV WKDW WKH rescuing of literary disFRXUVH$WWULGJHE argued for at the beginning of Chapter
4 can only work to a postcolonial-ecocritical advantage if emplotment
is understood as a means to move beyond the distinctLRQRIIRUPDQG
FRQWHQW $OWKRXJK VXFK D GLVWLQFWLRQ PDNHV VHQVH IRU KHXULVWLF UHasons, it cannot be maintained. Accordingly, by looking for EnvironMentality, I have been approachLQJDVWXG\RIform without formalism (119). By the same token, Mikhail %DNKWLQFODLPVWKDWWKHVWXG\
of verbal art can and must overcome the divorce between an abstract
IRUPDO DSSURDFK DQG DQ HTXDOO\ DEVWUDFW LGHRORJLFDO DSSURDFK
)RUPDQGFRQWHQWLQGLVFRXUVHDre one (Bakhtin 1981: 258).
144
By taking into account the sSHFLILF VRFLDO WRQH RI WKH QRYHO
%DNKWLQ GHVFULEHV LW DV D SKHQRPHQRQ PXOWLIRUP LQ VW\OH DQG YDUiform in speech and voice (Bakhtin 1981: 258; 261). He furthermore
writes that by means of a new poetics of the novel we can understand
KRZ >H@YHU\ QRYHO >@ LV DQ LQWHQWLRQDO DQG FRQVFLRXV K\EULG RI
different layers of language and meaning, which interact dialogically
(366) %DNKWLQV QRWLRQ RI KHWHURJORW QRYHOLVWLF VSHHFK LQGHHG FRUUesponds to the tone of The Hungry Tide. In my reading, I have connected the intertextual DOOXVLRQV DQG WKH QRYHOV heteroglossia to the
RYHUDUFKLQJHQYLURQPHQWDORULHQWDWLRQRIWKHQDUUDWLYH%DNKWLQVLGHD
RIWKHFDUQLYDOLVDWLRQRIOLWHUDU\VSHHFKFDQWKXVEHUH-assessed in the
context of this study (see also Murphy 2011). It shares aspects and
IXQFWLRQV ZLWK ZKDW =DSI FDOOV WKH HFRORJLFDO IXQFWLRQ RI OLWHUDWXUH
(or, for that matter, what postcolonial studies describes as the discurVLYH SRWHQWLDO GHULYHG IURP DPELYDOHQFH PLPLFU\ DQG K\EULGLW\.1
By incorporating various linguistic and discursive elements into the
QRYHOLVWLFZKROHWKHQRYHOVWDQGVDVDSDURG\RIWKHOD\HUVRIPHDnLQJRQWKHRQHKDQGDQGDVDUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRILPDJHVRIODQJXDJHV
DVWKH\HQWHUWKHJUHDWDQd diverse world of verbal forms (Bakhtin
1981: 52), on the other.2
In my reading of The Hungry Tide, I have identified a number of
narrative strategies that VXSSOHPHQWHGRULQVWLJDWHGDQHQYLURQPHQWDO
reading experience. My findings will now serve as the starting point
for further readings: the emplotment of the natural environment and its
staging through narrative situations and focalisation, the dialogic nature of fiction and its negotiation of the muteness of non-human
nature, and the role of intertextual references, for instance. MukherMHHV FODLP WKDW The Hungry Tide H[DJJHUDWHGO\ SHUIRUPV LWV RZQ
fictionality by borrowing idioms, rhythms and cadences from allied art
IRUPVWKDWFRQVWLWXWHWKHFXOWXUDOPDWUL[ (2010: 12) serves as an important impulse%\ZKDWPHDQVGRHVOLWHUDWXUHperform its own fictionality and how does this relate to EnvironMentality? According to
1
A similar point is made by Reckwitz (2000: 21). Another remarkable point of

convergence, which I cannot discuss due to restrictions of space, is Gernot
%|KPHVHFRORJLFal aesthetics (see Bhme 1989; Rigby 2011).
3DURG\KDVEHHQSXWLQLQYHUWHGFRPPDVWRLQGLFDWHWKH%DNKWLQLDQXVDJHRIWKH
concept rather than any other usage relying on the idea of deliberate teasing.
%DNKWLQPDLQWDLQVWKDWLIDQRYHOSDURGLHVFHUWDLQJHQUHVLWLQFRUSRUDWHVWKHPDV
the object of representationDQGWKHUHE\PDNHV them WKHhero of the parody
(1981: 51, emphases orig.).
Facets of EnvironMentality
145
Bakhtin, the dialogical alliance with other works of art is one of the
most effective characteristics of novelistic heteroglossia in general.
For the difficulty of reality, and for the elusiveness of nature, this
PHDQVWKDWDQRYHOVGLVFXUVLYHQHJRWLDWLRQVFRQVWLWXWHDYLDEOHZD\RI
coming to terms with some of the complexities that nature and postcolonial environments entail.
In the preceding chapter, I commented on the motif and trope of
translation in The Hungry Tide. On the surface level of the text, translation appears as an element of the plot, and it is primarily represented
by one character, Kanai. In the course of the interpretive process,
however, it becomes a trope whose narrative staging clearly connects
to the environmental concerns discerned in my interpretation of the
text. It could be argued that the trope of translation that informs my
reading in general clashes with the role translation plays as an aspect
RI.DQDLVFKDUDFWHUQDPHO\DVSDUWRIKLVXUEDQHEDFNJURXQGDQG
almost arrogant, language-focused stance, which contrasts strikingly
ZLWK 3L\DV FKDUDFWHU +RZHYHU LQ P\ KHUPHQHXWLF DFFRXQW RI The
Hungry Tide, the trope of translation is not read this way; instead it
DGGVWRWKHLGHDWKDWWKHPDQ\-layered problem of translation [is] the
model for the linguisticality of all human behaviour in the world
(Gadamer 1976: 19). Gadamer points out that every interpretation is
always also a moment of translation, and he thus emphasises that the
subjective interpretation of art opens ways of understanding a shared
PHDQLQJ EHWZHHQ >..] strangeness and familiarity (Gadamer 1994:
295).
%\WKHVDPHWRNHQ*DGDPHUFODLPVWKDWWKHVKDULQJLQFRPPRQ
PHDQLQJ (292) GHSHQGVRQWKHRSHQQHVVWRWKHPHDQLQJRIWKHRWKHU
SHUVRQ RU WH[W WKLV RSHQQHVV DOZD\V LQFOXGHV RXU VLWXDWLQJ WKH
other meaning in relation to the whole of our meanings or ourselves in
relation to it (268). This focus on otherness clearly resonates with
$WWULGJHVQRWLRQ of the otherness of literature and helps to see that a
hermeneutic reflection of prejudices with its ethical implications can
easily be distinguished IURP +XJJDQV concept of otherness as the
raw material of what he calls the DOWHULW\LQGXVWU\:
7KHRWKHUQHVVRUDOWHULW\RIOLWHUDWXUHLVSUHFLVHO\not the sense in which the term
is used by Huggan, because it is not amenable to the domestication gesture of
exoticism, resists commodification, and always exists as a disruptive excess in relation to existing cultural norms. (Mukherjee 2010: 10)
146
While reading, sensu Gadamer, must be situated within the framework

of understanding in general, we can, following Attridge and Mukherjee, re-assess the interpretive hermeneutics of EnvironMentality as an
encounter with alterity that enables the literary experience of the realities of the environment.
If we understand PLPHVLVas the concept by which reality can be
discussed, our discussion must then be complemented by the work of
*DGDPHU DQG 5LFXU 0LPHVLV is not an LFRQLF FRS\LQJ EXW [...] a
SUD[LVRIILJXUDWLRQ (Schweiker 1988: 24). 6LQFHWKHZRUOGFRPHVWR
EHWKURXJKRXUHQDFWPHQW, ZKLOHDWWKHVDPHWLPHWKHZRUOGLVQRW
simply a construction (37), mimetic figurations in literature constantly negotiate human experiences of reality by coming to terms
with alterity. Literary alterity can be understood as a constant, quasievolutionary3 move away from the familiar. Ecocritical mimesis therefore opens uSVSDFHVRIHQYLURQPHQWDOYLVLRQ, DQGQRWRIUHFRJQition (NORYVN\ 2009: 10). Since these visions have to be actively
negotiated, literature becomes an ethical contribution to the crisis of
the imagination.4 The decisive point is not the level of ever-growing
artistic sophistication but the effectiveness of the text to provide unFRPPRQ ZD\V RI UHDGLQJ WKH ZRUOG )URP WKDW SHUVSHFWLYH HFRPiPHWLFnature writing might have worked as a counter-discursive literary force because it engendered a sense of alterity in a postmodern
world; the aporias I discussed with regard to postcolonial ecocriticism,
however, call for different means of representation.
Understood that way, the concept of mimesis gains new relevance
as it begins to be conceived in terms of a narrative transformation of
the mimetic that negotiates received opinion about the world and the
problems of reality by providing literary vision and experience (see
3
$VSRLQWHGRXWDERYHWKHQRWLRQRIDOLWHUDU\HYROXWLRQKDVEHHQIDPRXVO\GHscribed by the Formalists. Bakhtin (1981) argues in a similar manner when he

explains KRZ JHQHULF IRUPV DW ILUVW SURGXFWLYH LQWHUDFW ZLWK WUDGLWLRQ DQG
either adapt or lose meaning (85). See also Striedter (1971b: ix-lxxxiii). That such
a transformative understanding of mimesis can also be maintained with regard to
postmodern literature has been shown by Linda Hutcheon (1988) and Heinz Ickstadt (1998). See also Chapter 9 of this study.
As argued above, Bergthaller (2VXJJHVWVWKDWZHDPHOLRUDWHWKHPLVFRQFHStion of the relation between ethics and literature DQG SRLQWV WR WKH IDFW WKDW LW
LV QRW WKH UHIHUHQWLDO GLPHQVLRQ ZKLFK OHQGV D WH[W LWV HWKLFDO IRUFH EXW UDWKHU
QDUUDWLYHIRUP,DUJXHDERYHWKDWWKHUROHRIIRUPRUIRUPDOLQQRYDWLRQ
determines how far a text is capable of opening up avenues of vision (instead of
creating the referentialist effect: recognition).
147
Ickstadt 1998: 3; 156). Thus, by fusing a narratological approach that

combines a formalist reading practice with an interpretive praxis
grounded on hermeneutic philosophy and the aesthetics of reception,
the question of ZKHWKHUODQJXDJHVKRXOGEHEHQWWRZDUG the world
(Buell 2008: 33) can be discussed in more detailed and illustrative
terms. In the hermeneutic context that I have proposed, the role of
UHDGLQJDVDQLPDJLQDWLYHFKDOOHQJHDQGDVDORFXVRI5LFXUVWKUHefold mimesis can thus be maintained.
The theoretical grounding of these ideas admittedly differs from
numerous HFRFULWLFDO FRQFHSWV RI WKHRU\ XQGHUVWRRG DV WKHRULHV RI
the natural sciences). And UDWKHU WKDQ WU\LQJ WR FRQVWUXFW D WKHRU\
[that FDUULHV@ FRQQRWDWLRQV RI REMHFWLYLW\ QHXWUDOLW\ HYHQ VFLHnWLILFLW\ I adhere to the hermeneutic understanding of scholarship
and take the connection to notions of science solely as an inducement
WRXVHDSUHFLVHPHWD-ODQJXDJH (Rimmon-Kenan 2002: 136). In the
case of ecocritical studies, this means that reading and discussing the
hermeneutics of fiction according to theories of formalism, structuralism, and narratology accomplishes a reconciliation of two of the most
FRQIOLFWLYHEUDQFKHVRIWKHHFRFULWLFDOGHEDWHZKLOH3KLOOLSVFULWLTXH
of the ecocritical project is considered, and ecocriticism might be
given VRPHELWHDQGIRUFH VRLV%XHOOVLGHDRIDQHQvironmental text, which, ultimately, can be described more precisely
in terms of the hermeneutics of EnvironMentality.
To this end, the question of how texts constitute their impact in
WHUPVRIZKDW%XHOOFDOOVWKHLUHQYLURQPHQWDOLW\DQGWKHTXHVWLRQof
how such a feature could be properly characterised, are crucial. I have
described the interpretive challenge they entail, and in engaging with
the narrative features that help to engender EnvironMentality, I wish
to make a point for a discussion of the literary potential of a text
rather than a simply appellative or persuasive function of a set of signs
the potential to make us rethink nature just as much as the potential
to attempt a discursive harmonisation, as Zapf suggests. EnvironMentality depends on a stance towards literature that understands fiction as an aesthetic discourse, and we need to realise that, for example,
D WH[WV SRO\VHPDQWLF QDWXUH LV QHLWKHU D FRLQFLGHQFH QRU VRPHWKLQJ
WKDWGLVWUDFWVXVIURPWKHUHDOZRUOG,QVWHDGLWLVDWKRURXJKO\ cultural way of dealing with what we know and feel about the natural
world, or the world-as-text.
This connection of materiality and textuality can be discussed in
the framework I proposed, too. As argued above, an approach that
148
focuses on textual form does not lead away from content or meaning
at all, although critics have claimed this. In fact, formalist-structuralist
WKHRU\KDVQHYHUH[FOXVLYHO\EHHQFRQFHUQHGZLWKIRUPDWWKHFRVWRI
FRQWHQW
There is no denying that formalist practice included such affinities and dangers [to
exclude questions of all nonverbal aspects of literature]. [...] [But] in the formalist
method, it was only the direction of the question that was determined; the catalogue of questions was not. In this respect, it also allows for an inclusion of sociological, psychological, philosophical and other problems, given that the overall direction of the inquiry remains literature as such, which means that the special
function of all these factors within the system of the literary work or of literature
is scrutinised and not turned into material for other approaches with different and
specific research questions. (Striedter 1971b: xix; my translation)
This balance is exactly what I am looking for, and postclassical approaches in narratology and New-Formalism stand as examples of the
necessity of reconciling content and form in literary studies (see
Heinen & Sommer 2009; Levinson 2007).
In this context, it is also important that the focus on how a text
ZRUNVLQWHUPVRIDHVWKHWLFIXQFWLRQDOLW\DOORZVXVWRWUDQVFHQGSHrsonal (authorial) ideology. When Bakhtin points out the general dialogicity of a text, which cannot be reduced to the actual dialogues of
characters, for instance, this dialogicity has to be understood as an
intertextual struggle of voices and meanings within the written word
(see Bakhtin 1990)$FFRUGLQJO\NORYVNy GHVFULEHVKRZWKHLQKHrHQWODZVRIWKHZRUNVVWUXFWXUHDQGWKHDUWLVWLFSUDFWLces [result in an]
ability to compete with the [...] ideological position or thematic conception of the author as such (Striedter 1971b: xxxiv; my translation). %DNKWLQDQGNORYVNy describe a tension inherent in every literary text but this tension becomes particularly relevant with regard to
environmental texts: if dialogicity is a constituent of every text, literatuUH FDQ LQGHHG FRQWULEXWH LQ VLJQLILFDQW ZD\V WR >WKH@ WUDQVGLVFLSOiQDU\GLDORJXH(Zapf 2009: 847) of ethics and ecology without being
overly or exclusively concerned with ecological questions or mimetic
representations of nature. In a postcolonial context, this dialogical
potential is pivotal (see Barker 2010: 25). If the benefit of formalist
literary studies lies in its focus on the very literary elements (rather
than a concentration on purely ethical discourses as can be found
in philosophical debates), it must be possible to show that it is this
149
literariness that opens new ways of realising ecological ethics as a

challenge to human imagination.
Instead of a clearly defined set of morals, a narrative engagement
with ecological ethics or, in my terms, the hermeneutics of EnvironMentality, creates occasions for negotiation for example, between a
WH[WVRYHUWSKLORVRSKLFDOFRQYLFWLRQDQGLWVPDLQDHVWKHWLFHIIHFW (see
also Bartosch 2010; Chambers 1991; Sinfield 1992). Since ethics, as a
philosophical GLVFRXUVH DSSHDUV >@ DV DQ H[SUHVVLRQ RI SUHFLVHO\
that logocentric and anthropocentric ideology that modern ecological
thought tries to overcome (Zapf 2009: 848), the ethics of reading can
be described as being
in this sense, [...] not the same as morality; on the contrary, it involves precisely a
critique of moral systems as far as they imply fixed, conventionalized, and impersonal rules of thought and behaviour. (854)
$FFRUGLQJ WR =DSI WKLV OHDGV WR D UHVLVWDQFH to moralistic storytelling (854), and such a form of resistance may be engendered by narUDWLYHSURSHUWLHVVXFKDVWKHLQWHUSOD\RIDVWRU\VVXSSRVHG moralV
and the closer analysis of its form. Reading texts raises the awareness
for gaps of meaning. It is the tension between what Iser, following
,QJDUGHQ FDOOV LQWHQWLRQDO VHQWHQFH FRUUHODWLYHV DQG WKH UHDOLVDWLRQ
of meaning by the reader that allows for a critical reading praxis that
can be called ethical (see Iser 1974: 276).
Reading ecocritically is therefore inextricably connected with interpretation. Interpretation, in turn, does not simply mean the prejudgement that Heidegger and Gadamer have shown to always also
H[LVWLQDQ\VXSSRVHGO\LQQRFHQWUHDGLQJRIDWH[WLWPHDQVDQDFWLYH
negotiation of the tension arising both from an individual interpretive
moment and, as both Fish and Rorty have shown, the relevance of
RQHVLQWHUSUHWLYHFRPPXQLW\Such negotiations in The Hungry Tide
take place with regard to the conflict between Deep Ecology and Social Ecology, for instance, which is acted out on various levels of the
narrative. It is not only a structural element of the plot, it also configures the reading experience. The interpretive process thus exposes a
third SODFH 5 beyond the either/or categories the conflict between
'HHS DQG 6RFLDO (FRORJ\ SUHVXSSRVHV E\ WDNLQJ WKH GLHJHWLF OHDS
$OWKRXJKWKHFORVHQHVVWR%KDEKDVWHUPLQRORJ\LVDQ\WKLQJE\FRLQFLGHQWDO,DP
here referring to Kramsch (1993).
150
(Bergthaller) as the reader, in a specific cultural environment, negotiates and harmonises individual, interpretive choices.
It is therefore particularly the concern for the postcolonial context
of the works under scrutiny that has helped to emphasise the importance of the interpretive subject. Notably the spatial and, thus, the
epistemological and cultural differences have had a crucial impact on
the reading presented above. This distance, I have argued, becomes a
source of meaning, and it refutes ideas of becoming one with the other
and argues for an acknowledgement of difference instead (for a disFXVVLRQRIGLIIHUHQFHLQHFRFULWLFLVPVHH&ODYLH]. Moreover,
my interpretation of The Hungry Tide has shown that reading the environment does not mean coming to terms with the world as an empirical reality. Rather, I have pointed to a challenge with regard to
postcolonial readings. When I dismiss a cultural-materialist interpretation (an Indian, a Bengali or a subaltern way of reading), I take full
advantage of the idea that an Indian text in English can be taken as a
ORFXVRIDVKDULQJLQFRPPRQPHDQLQJ (Gadamer 1994: 292) where
interpretation always reflects back on the personal identity of the
reader. While the novelistic discourse is thoroughly heteroglot, the
interpretation of the text has shown the configured world, and the
identity related to it, coming into being as a personal encounter. Instead of an empirical world and cultural knowledge, EnvironMentality
leads to the awareness that the self is connected to the world in an act
of individual readerly realisation.
Thus, the idea of an ethics of reading and the hermeneutic project
RI QDUUDWLYH LGHQWLW\ 5LFXU DUH FRQQHFWHG and the conception of
EnvironMentality links to literary anthropology. While I have referred
WR =DSIV PRGHO RI OLWHUDU\ HFRORJ\, which is grounded directly on
theories of cultural ecology and literary anthropology (thus connecting
to the writing of Iser, amongst others), I maintain a cautious distance
to the metaphor of ecology. I agree with Zapf who argues that to unGHUVWDQG WKH aesthetic and imaginative dimensions of literature
(Zapf 2006: 53; emphasis orig.) is one of the numerous aims of ecocritical scholarship. I also follow his claim that we need to ask for the
function the fictional mode of literary communication, which is characterized not
by direct imitation but by the defamiliarization and symbolic transformation of
UHDOLW\DQGQDWXUHcan have within the larger system of cultural institutions and
discourses. (53)
151
However, I do not think that ecology is necessarily the right metaphor or analogy for these processes. Although Zapf employs formalistic vocabulary and shows the same acute awareness of the peculiarity
of fictional discourse that I have argued for above, his analogy to
ecology accentuates a pattern of organicism and autonomy. However,
dialogical literary discourses and their interpretation nolens volens
deconstruct these notions of organicism and autonomy. Following
Iser, I therefore interrogate notions of organic wholeness in literature
and the metaphoricity of cultural-ecological notions:
Artistic communication is guided by the principle of constructing a pattern out of
what interrupts patterns. Thus literature [...] appears as if it were a totality, because it is a concatenation of levels and processes that are similar to those at work
in an autonomous system. Therefore the literary text has been likened to the structure of an organism, which is the paradigm of an autonomous system. This autonomy, however, is artificial and incomplete [...]. Instead, it has to be processed by
the reader, who makes this artificial autonomy function in a context larger than
the text itself. The noise ensuing from such a coupling may have different origins.
[...] [W]hat appears to be noise on one level of the text may not only make meaning on another, but may also enhance the semantic complexity of the information
conveyed. (Iser 1996: 17)
I quote this passage at length because it highlights a number of important concerns. Firstly, it criticises the assumptions that literature is
autonomous or organic. By maintaining that neither is the case, Iser
argues for two important stances on literature: he dismisses the organic metaphoricity that can be found in models of cultural ecology as
these metaphors tend to overlook the aesthetic (human, artificial, configurative) aspects of the literary text; but he also illuminates the function of such metaphoricity in the history of narratological interest, for
the organic metaphor has been understood as the paradigm of the
DXWRQRPRXVV\VWHP An ecocritical narratology must therefore learn
to distinguish between the ideological vocabulary of earlier formoriented works and its own understanding of nature, organicism and
ecological systems. This critique could apply WR OLWHUDU\ HFRORJ\ DV
well.
This is why I employ notions of emplotment, configurative mimesis and narratologically informed interpretation, which consider the
reader as well. In the preceding chapter, I described how formal elements guide the reading process and ultimately become part of the
meaning of any literary experience. Engaging with form is thus the
first step in the interpretive process since narrative strategies and other
152
DVSHFWV RI IRUP FDQQRW EH GHVFULEHG DV HQYLURQPHQWDO DV VXFK
instead, it is the interplay with the readerly interpretive agency that
equips the visible structures of form with significant meaning by
merging natural experiences and textual orientation (see Fish 1980: 2).
Following Stanley Fish in his judgement that readerly activities cannot
EHPHUHO\LQVWUXPHQWDORUPHFKDQLFDOEXWWKDWWKH\DUHHVVHQWLDO
(2-3), an ecocritical theory of EnvironMentality would be grounded on
WKHDVVXPSWLRQWKDWWKHUHDGHUVUHVSRQVHLVQRWto the meaning; it is
the meaning (3; emphasis orig.). Since any formal device taken out
of context becomes an empty variable, it is both in the context of a
textual whole and in connection to readerly interpretive activity that
the elements I described above dialogicity, emplotment of nature in
the context of tripartite mimesis JDLQVLJQLILFDQFH,Q)LVKVZRUGV
the value of those features [can] only be determined by determining their function
in the developing experience of the reader. Linguistic facts [...] do have meaning
but the explanation for that meaning is not the capacity of syntax to express it but
the ability of a reader to confer it. (8)
The emphasis here should not only EH RQ WKH UHDGHUV DELOLW\ WR
confer meaning in general but also on the fact that readerly experience
develops in the act of reading. In hermeneutic terms, this means that
WKHUHVXOWRIUHDGLQJDFHUWDLQWH[WKDVLQWXUQWREHXQGHUVWRRGDVWKH
basis for future ecocritical readings, which are already informed by,
but also collide with, the environmental significance of former readings. In this study, the first reading was concerned with the emplotment of nature and it will be the basis for subsequent readings that, for
instance, focus on the animal. It is from there that I will go on to
discuss notions of posthumanism and the idea of a postnatural world
not as different discourses but as discourses that are entangled with
the idea of the natural environment and animality, and to be understood on the basis of the heuristic value of previous readings.
I am not proposing a way to gain philosophical insights, however.
What I am proposing is a literary way of learning to read the world.
This is why it would EH LPSRVVLEOH WR DWWULEXWH DQ\ LQGHSHQGHQW
PHDQLQJWRWKHOLWHUDU\IDFW this would, as Fish argues, have been
preselected (77). Instead, ecocritical reading means negotiation, and a
refusal of simplified concepts of referentiality for the sake oIVRPeWKLQJDFTXLUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIDQDFWLYLW\ (89) namely, to read the
world in an ethical context. As early as 1997, Joseph Meeker argued
for form to be taken into ecocritical account, and his ecocritical work
153
on literary genre is still largely stimulating.6 In the context of hermeQHXWLFV KRZHYHU 0HHNHUV FODLPV PXVW EH UHDVVHVVHG. Meeker dePDQGHGWKDW>V@\QWD[PXVW>@FKDQJHDQGZHZLOOKDYHWRUHWKLQN
the meanings of subject, predicate, object, noun, and verb. Rhythms of
language need to observe the pulses of fluids and the subtleties of
daily and seasonal time (1988: 5). Rather than thus stressing the referential function of literature, I see environmental meaning in fiction
as reliant on their configurative potential. That is to say, literary potential is engendered via interpretation the making sense of strucWXUDO IHDWXUHV GLDORJLF QDUUDWLYLVDWLRQ DQG RWKHU IRUPDO GLVWLQFWLRQV
[that do not] possess meaning (as a consequence of a built-in relationship between formal features and cognitive capacities) [but that] acquire it [...] by virtue of their position in a structure of experience
(Fish 1980: 91).
By virtue of being a singular event of meaning, literature can formulate a utopian, harmonising potential that at the same time resists
any totalising moral implications (see Eagleton 2011: 198-9). For the
reader, the negotiation of such a quasi-ethical discourse, which refuses
DQ\WLPHOHVVVSDFHOHVVVXEMHFWOHVVFRQGLWLRQDVLWSXUVXHVLWVORJLF,
provides for an experience of otherneVVE\YLUWXHRIWKHWH[WVVWDJLQJ
of the fundamental processes whereby language works upon us and
upon the world (Attridge 2004b: 198; 130). The literary text makes
possible a way of thinking beyond the boundaries of ordinary thought.
EnvironMentality does nRWUHTXLUHOLWHUDWXUHWREHHFRPLPHWLF and
LWHPEUDFHVDQRYHOVDUWLVWLFSRWHQWLDO7KXVLWQHJRWLDWHVWKHFRQILJurative potential and the environmental meaning fostered by creative
DQGOLWHUDU\HQFRXQWHUVZLWKUHDOLW\ In the words of Iser,
the novel deals with social and historical norms, [but] this does not mean that it
simply reproduces contemporary values. The mere fact that not all norms can possibly be included in the novel shows that there must be a process of selection [...].
Norms are social regulations, and when they are transposed into the novel they are
automatically deprived of their pragmatic nature. (1974: xii)
Depragmatising the values it is concerned with, the novel at the same

time employs an array of moral stances and transcends them in the
,DJUHHZLWK8UVXOD+HLVHDKRZHYHUZKRPDLQWDLQVWKDW>W@KHLGHDWKDWD

particular literary form has ecological implications independently of its content or
LWVFXOWXUDOXVHVVHHPVWRRHVVHQWLDOLVW>@WRGD\
154
PRPHQWWKH\DUHGHSULYHGRIWKHLUSUDJPDWLFQDWXUH.=DSIOLNHZLVH
VWUHVVHVWKHDVSHFWRIGHSUDJPDWLVDWLRQDQGFODLPV that through
the suspension of direct referentiality and immediate purpose, [fiction] enables the
aestheticising distancing of real-world experiences and at the same time makes
possible their imaginative explorations. (Zapf 2001: 87)
One may therefore lRRN DW SRVVLEOH HYHQWV RI D WUDQVILJXUHG ZRUOG
that has been moulded by our interaction with the literary text. This
realisation can be described in terms of a reading praxis that is not
unlike what Fish described in his work on WKH interpretive communityVHH)LVK-74). With the idea of EnvironMentality, it is
possible to analyse the tension arising between such communities,
which almost arbitrarily label forms of writing as meaningful literaWXUH DQG WKH QDWXUH RI ILFWLRQDO WH[WV DV HYHQW RU semiotic acts irreGXFLEOHWRWKHFRGHVZKLFKJHQHUDWHWKHP(DJOHWRQ
Wolfgang Iser traces these negotiations and describes the history of
the novel as a KLVWRU\ RI discovery of esthetic pleasure (Iser 1974:
xiii). In a brief historical overview introducing his studies on reader
participation in the English novel, Iser claims that
[a]t the end of the seventeenth century, discovery was a process offering reassurances as regards the certitude salutis, thus relieving the distress caused by the
Calvinist doctrine of predestination. In the eighteenth century men were concerned with discovering that which the prevailing philosophy of empiricism was
unable to determine: namely, what human nature consists of [...]. In the nineteenth
FHQWXU\ WKH DWWHQWLRQ RI WKH GLVFRYHUHUV ZDV WXUQHG WR VXEMHFWLYLW\ first to its
social role and then to its overall structure. (xiii)
The anxieties of the twenty-first century include ecological crises, our

understanding of nature and a reassessment of its intrinsic worth. The
tensions I outlined above can thus all be understood as directly conFHUQHGZLWKWKHLGHDRIUHDOLW\LQJHQHUDOWKHFRQIOLFWRI6RFLDODQG
Deep Ecology in particular, and the needs of human and nonhuman
animals in a world in crisis where, at the same time, the ethical impetus against environmental pollution, cruelty towards animals and so
forth becomes more self-confident. The twenty-first-century novel
therefore continues the project of aesthetic discoveries that the novel
had made possible from the end of the seventeenth century onwards,
as Iser claims. That he also describes how the reader, as a result of
WKHVHGLVFRYHULHVJHWVWRNQRZDQHZUHDOLW\WKURXJKDILFWLRQZKLFK
at least in part, is different from the ZRUOGKHKLPVHOILVXVHGWR (Iser
155
1974: xiii) emphasises the hermeneutic and ethical value of these discoveries. EnvironMentality thereby also exemplifies the formalist idea
of an evolutionary break with tradition with regard to certain reading
practices the examples are numerous.7
In the postcolonial-ecocritical context, where dichotomies and biQDU\WKLQNLQJDUHSUREOHPDWLVHGWKHDHVWKHWLFH[SHULHQFHRIDVWDWHRI
in-EHWZHHQ SURYLGHV IRU D VWLPXODWLQJ QHZ SHUVSHFWLYH8 7KH WH[WV
fictionality makes it SRVVLEOH WKDW ZH DUH >@ ERWK RXUVHOYHV DQG
VRPHRQHHOVHDWWKHVDPHWLPH (Fluck 2002: 263), but it also echoes
the tension of identity and difference pointed to in Gadamerian herPHQHXWLFV :LWK UHJDUG WR RXU WDVN RI WKLQNLQJ OLNH D PRXQWDLQ RU
NQRZLQJZKDWLWLVOLNHWREHDEDWWKHDHVWKHWLFSRWHQWLDORIOLWHUature engenders the very realisation of this claim IRU>W@KHILFWLRQDO
WH[WDOORZVXVWRHQWHUDFKDUDFWHUVSHUVSHFWLYHDnd perhaps even his
or her body (263).
To conclude: Reading D WH[WVIRUP GRHV FRQWULEXWH WR the understanding of it from an ecocritical perspective. Moreover, it strikes me
as odd that, by and large, formalist-structuralist approaches have been
overlooked by ecocriticism, since concepts of literary evolution and
means of aesthetic estrangement readily lend themselves to ecocritical
discussion. Reading texts as aesthetic discourses makes it possible to
describe the reading experience and the literary text as the prime locus
for ecocritical engagement. Rather than tKH PXFK FRQWHVWHG HFRFRUUHFWQHVV RU ad hoc claims for realism, the aesthetic rendering of
WKH ZRUOG DOORZV IRU D FRPSOH[ QHJRWLDWLRQ RI UHDOLW\ EHFDXVH DV
Phillips rightly argueV>L@QRWKHUIRUPVRIH[SUHVVLRQWKHSXUVXLWRI
realism in the depiction of nature has produced a surfeit of kitsch
(Phillips 2003: 164). EnvironMentality in contrast resolves the problems of realism and referentiality by regarding both as poetic modes
that have to be redefined as artistic conventions change. Realism is
certainly not the only way to express and configure experiences of
nature; rather, narratives of nature may take on various forms and still
succeed in engendering EnvironMentality. Since the experience of
7
+HLVHVUHDGLQJRIELRGLversity databases (2010d) is certainly an example. Others

can be found in Curry (2008) and Hochman (2008).
There exists of course philosophical work on this as well, for instance CurryV
work on PRQLVWHVVHQWLDOLVPD0LWWHUHUVQRQ-dualist language (2011) or
3OXPZRRGV ZULWLQJ RQ HQYLURQPHQWDO FXOWXUH , do not argue that literature is the only place where such notions are debated, but that it offers unique
ways of engaging with these notions.
156
alterity allows for a negotiation of conflicts such as that of Deep versus Social Ecology, or the idea of a postmodern ecology, non-realist
texts might even be more effective as a challenge to our imaginative
routines. Thus, literature could help us to grasp complexities and conflicts that other discourses fail to account for.
For EnvironMentality, the elusive status of nature out there is as
important as the awareness of the discursive character of our notions
of the environment. By describing instances of double-coding, or by
identifying intertextual functionalities, this twofold direction can be
accounted for. A reading that incorporates this theoretical orientation
FDQWKHUHIRUHULJKWO\EHFDOOHGDIRUPRIHFRFULWLFDOSUD[LVLIRQO\a
UHDGLQJSUD[LVThus, literary studies can foster an understanding of
possible ways of dealing with the human crisis of imagination.
It must be repeated that the hermeneutic orientation of the process
that engenders EnvironMentality is grounded on the fact that any extension of the human understanding of others does not imply becoming them. Hermeneutics rather entails a process of the merging of
horizons, which ultimately takes effect on the self. This tension of
sameness and selfness LQ 5LFXUV ZRUGV WKH WHQVLRQ Eetween the ipse and the idem between which narrative identities are
negotiated becomes pivotal for the ethical engagement of literature
because these tensions become temporarily harmonised and can be
experienced. Not only do we tell stories to understand the world, QDrUDWLYLW\, 5LFXU PDLQWDLQV RIIHUV DQ DOWHUQDWLYH VROXWLRQ >@ E\
which we ordinarily speak of life as a story (77). 7KLV QDUUDWLYH
idenWLW\ needs to be re-assessed in the context of EnvironMentality
because it helps to situate the individual experience of living in the
context of the natural world. Fish may be right when he states that we
cannot leave our interpretive community, but unlike in )LVKVFRQFHSW
the idea of EnvironMentality presupposes an interpreting community.
As a result, there is always the possibility of reassessment (of the
world and of RQHVplace in it), evolving around the reading individual
who maps his or her own environment under expanding horizons.
*****
My reading of The Hungry Tide has been concerned with the ways the
QRYHOV QDUUDWLYH IRUP FRQWULEXWHV WR WKH KHUPHQHXWLFV RI WKH ZRUOGas-text. In the course of my argument, I have concentrated on the
means of narrating the environment and the place of human beings
157
within this environment. The focus on textuality in connection with

the actual, physical landscape is of course an important aspect of ecocritical scrutiny in general. And postcolonial ecocriticism in particular
tries to analyse
the ways that both postcolonial and ecocritical worldviews, while informed by
scientific and philosophical inquiry, are explicitly manifest through fictional representations that are neither works of science nor philosophy. (Wright 2010: 1)
Following Laura Wright, I argue for an attempt WR SRVLWLRQ WKH GLscourse about postcolonialism and environmentalism within the realm
of the imaginary (1). Unlike Wright, however, my focus is both narratological and, ultimately, hermeneutic. It is in the context of postcolonial literature that I want to reassess hermeneutical concepts, such
DVWKH merging of horizons Gadamer has described, and to propose
EnvironMentality as an effect of the singularity of fiction.
,QVWHDGRI*DGDPHUVDVVHUWLRQWKDWLWLVWKHWHPSRUDOGLVWDQFHthat
allows for an empathetic bridging of difference that fosters understanding, I argued in the preceding chapter that postcolonial literature
provides the hypothetical :HVWHUQUHDGHUZLWKDQHPSORWWHG spatial
distance. This distance has to be bridged in the process of reading.
Taking this distance as the starting point for hermeneutic processes of
understanding puts postcolonial literature in an important place. When
understanding is made possible by imaginative acts that bridge a distance, we need no longer, as Gadamer has argued, refer to temporally
distant texts. Instead, we may bring into play our interpretive activity
with regard to texts that in one way or another deal with distance or
periphery and allow for an experience of alterity. At the same time,
WKHVHWH[WVPDNHH[RWLFLVPELWHEDFNDV0XNKHUMHHVD\V (2010: 8).9
It is in line with postcolonial theory that such a bridging of gaps, or
PHUJLQJ RI KRUL]RQV GRHV QRW HQWDLO EHFRPLQJ WKH RWKHU ZKLFK
9
By this logic, I am not suggesting WKDW RQO\ :HVWHUQ UHDGHUV FDQ UHDG SRVWFRlonial literatures KHUPHQHXWLFDOO\ $WWULGJH UHPLQGV XV WKDW WKHUH LV DOZD\V WKH
danger that cross-cultural appreciation may be based on superficial similarities,
while at the same time, the idea of otherness tends to be imbued with notions of
H[RWLFLVDWLRQ7KLVLVZK\KHVXJJHVWVWKDWZHVKRXOGQRW>@PDNHDQDEVROXWH
GLVWLQFWLRQ >@ EHWZHHQ >WKH DUWZRUN@ RI D JHRJUDSKLFDO DQG FXOWXUDO KHUH DQG
WKHUH $WWULGJH b: 51; 52). This tension reinforces my argument for a
FDXWLRXVKHUPHQHXWLFVLQDJOREDODQGSRVWFRORQLDOOLWHUDU\FRQWH[Wdiscussions
DERXW UHDGHU UHVSRQVHV FDQQRW DVVXPH D XQLYHUVDO LPSOLHG UHDGHU EXW have to
acknowledge that reading the other is a way of finding out about its relation to me.
158
postcolonial theory has convincingly shown to be impossible). Instead

RIJLYLQJLQWRWKHLOOXVLRQWKDWWKHUHLVDP\VWHULRXVFRPPXQLRQRI
>:HVWHUQ DQG DOOHJHGO\ VXEDOWHUQ@ VRXOV, understanding is, in
*DGDPHUV VHQVH D VKDULQJ LQ FRPPRQ PHDQLQJ (Gadamer 1994:
292). The natural environment, or the world-as-text, is the space that
all inhabitants of the world share, but instead of essentialising a
FRPPRQJUDVSRIWKHZRUOG,KDYHVXJJHVWHGDOWHULW\DVWKHconcept
with which meaning and the perspectives of different life worlds can
be negotiated.10 ,WLVWKURXJKOLWHUDU\RWKHUQHVVWKDWDQH[SHULHQFHRI
different realities is engendered by means of a cautious hermeneutics.
The negotiation thereof, fostered by the interpretive engagement with
the narrative discourse, FRQVWLWXWHV WKH HYHQW RI UHDding, to use AtWULGJHVWHUPV
So far, the idea of a shared meaning has concerned questions of
nature and the socio-political embeddings of environmentalist visions
in a specific ecosystem. As The Hungry Tide suggests, the stories we
tell of the places around us form and modify our environment and
vice versa. However, it is not only the interconnectedness of
space/place and human emplotment that needs to be considered in the
context of EnvironMentality, but alsoWRIROORZ%DNKWLQWKHLQWULQVLF
connectedness of spatial and temporal relationships that are artistically
expressed in literature (Bakhtin 1981: 84). %DNKWLQVFRQFHSWRIWKH
chronotope, a concept that H[SUHVVHVWKHLQVHSDUDbility of space and
time (84), will help to describe this relation in the context of postcolonial ecocriticism. Despite the significance of this relation for literary anthropology, comparably little attention has been paid to the potential of Bakhtinian concepts to re-unite what was severed by traditional poetics (notable exceptions include Gras 2010; McDowell 1996;
Mller 2010; Friedman 2005). As Susan Stanford Friedman claims,
[s]pace restored to its full partnership with time as a generative force for narrative
allows for reading strategies focused on the dialogic interplay of space and time as
mediating coconstituents of human thought and experience. (Friedman 2005: 195)
Thus, EnvironMentality must consider this interplay.

10
7KHUHGHILQLWLRQRIWKHHQYLURQPHQWLQWHUPVRID PXOWLWXGHRIHQYLURQPHQWV
umwelten goes back to Jakob von Uexkll and links with contemporary biosemiotic research. In tracing semiotic ambivalences, which result in an experience
of environments, EnvironMentality adds to these findings by means of literary
DQDO\VHV,QWKLVFRQWH[WVHHDOVR/RWPDQVFRQFHSWRIWKHVHPLRVSKHUH
159
I have argued above that the rediscovery of place and space in narrative is central to ecocritical studies but that postcolonial criticism
has likewise been concerned with these categories too. From a formoriented angle, however, it is important to understand time and space
as related narrative phenomena. Despite 5LFXUVFODLPWKDWWHPSorality [is] the structure of existence that reaches language in narrativity (1981: 165), it can be shown that in narratives, both time and
space are emplotted in close relation to each other. It is also true,
however, that in narUDWRORJLFDO DQDO\VHV WLPH KDV EHHQ JUDQWHG D
PRUHSURPLQHQWSRVLWLRQ,QIDFWHYHQ*HQHWWHVH[KDXVWLYHVWXG\RQ
the numerous aspects of narrative composition devotes most of its
interest to temporal aspects and thus reduces space to a mere metaphoric device (see Genette 1980: 34). I agree with Friedman, who, in
reviewing the different ways that poetics have so far dealt with space,
FRQFOXGHVWKDW%DNKWLQVVHQVHRIWKHPXWXDOO\FRQVWLWXWLYHDQGLQWHractive nature of space and time in narrative has largely dropped out of
narrative poetics (Friedman 2005: 194). And while my reading of
The Hungry Tide has maintained the relevance of spatial emplotment
IRU SRVWFRORQLDO HFRFULWLFLVP )ULHGPDQV DUJXPHQW IRU D
topochronic narrative poetics suggests that the mutual interrelation
of time and space needs to come back into focus, not only for narrative analyses in general, but particularly in the context of postcolonial
ecocriticism and EnvironMentality.11
Moving on and broadening the scope of my criticism thus renders
this study an example of the hermeneutic orientation it proposes.
:KLOH UHDGLQJ =DNHV 0GDV The Heart of Redness will complement
my former reading by analysing emplotment in terms of a narrative
chronotope, it will also underscore a critique of notions of interculWXUDO XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG EHFRPLQJ 7KH QRYHOV FKURQRWRSH ZLOO EH
shown to effectively contradict the ideology of development suggested
on the narrative surface level. In doing so, the novel emplots the tension that is inherent in environmentalist concepts of development.
11
,WLVQRWFOHDUWRPHZK\)ULHGPDQWXUQVWKHQRXQFKURQRWRSH into the adjective

WRSRFKURQLFWKXVUHYHUVLQJWKHRUGHURIWKHFRPSRXQGV,DVVXPHWKDWVKHVHHNV
to stress the aspect of topos; I will follow her choice because I do not want to
FRQIXVH UHDGHUV E\ DGGLQJ FKURQRWRSLF WR WKH DOUHDG\ ORQJ OLVW RI QHologisms.
For studies that address the desiderata Friedman speaks about, see the various
contributions in Hallet & Neumann (2009). In this volume, see especially Birgit
1HXPDQQV essay on the imaginative geographies in postcolonial literatures
(115-38) and Ansgar NnningVQDUUDWRORJLFDOGLVFXVVLRQ33-52).
160
This critical focus will be elaborated upon in a second, shorter reading

of The Whale Caller. This reading will be concerned with forms of
becoming as they have been theorised in various philosophical works
for instance, by Derrida, Levinas and, most notably, Deleuze and
Guattari and ULGLFXOHGLQWKHJURWHVTXHDQGGLVWXUELQJORYHWULDQJOH
that the novel presents.
In subsequent chapters, I will turn from textual deep structures to
macrostructural elements such as intertextuality and genre and connect
these to various theoretical challenges that I believe can best be addressed by the aesthetic force of fiction: from nonhuman animals and
a literary sense of community with them to postnatural environments
and the intricacies of posthumanism. As I expand the theoretical scope
on the one hand and connect it with my analyses WKHRULVHWKURXJK
literature (Rimmon-Kenan 2002: 143), as it were on the other, I
will outline my approach of EnvironMentality and demonstrate it at
the same time. Thus, I follow Rimmon-.HQDQV FRQFHSW RI QDUUatological scrutiny, which VKH GHILQHV DV DQ HYHU-changing, openended creative process indeed, a perpetXDO WRZDUGV (149). Ultimately, this conception renders narratological description a hermeneutic project in itself if applied to ecocritical studies, it is a helpful
means to approach the ends of envisioning nature, nonhuman animals
and the task of posthumanism via the semiotic power of narrative.
6. The Uses of F(r)iction: The Heart of Redness,

The Whale Caller and Their Critique of Sustainable
Development and Becoming-Animal
The relation between time and narrative has been studied more thoroughly than any narrative engagement with place, not least of all by
3DXO 5LFXU, who describes the narration of time via fiction as a
WUDQVFXOWXUDOform of necessity (1983: 52). The connection between
spatial and temporal foci, however, has been of less concern. In this
FKDSWHU , WDNH %DNKWLQV FRQFHSW RI WKH FKURQRWRSH as the starting
point for a discussion of spatiotemporal narrative patterns in the context of EnvironMentality. By reading selected passages from Zakes
0GDV The Heart of Redness1 and by discussing notions of cultural
ecology and double-coding in this context, I will show how the
QRYHOV FKURQRWRSH LQWHUDFWV ZLWK WKH HQYLURQPHQWDOLVW SRVLWLRQV SUesented in the text.
The Heart of Redness is concerned with the influence of Westerneducated elites on wilderness, as well as on non-Western cultures, and
it features a vision of sustainable development. This counterdiscursive vision can be read in connection with cultural-ecological
notions but, ultimateO\WKHQRYHOVDHVWKHWLFIRUFHLV not tied to these
ideas. On the contrary, the textual form HVSHFLDOO\ WKH QRYHOV
chronotope contradicts the visions allegedly supported by the text.
Thus, I will argue, the text creates a significant tension, and I will
complement my argument for a form-oriented ecocritical approach by
analysing the friction that chronotope and environmental vision produce.
Just like The Hungry Tide, the novels of Zakes Mda, especially The
Heart of Redness and The Whale Caller, have become seminal works
in postcolonial-ecocritical analyses (see Goodman 2008; Sewlall
2008; Woodward 2005). The Heart of Redness in particular can be
GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI =DSIV FXOWXUDO-ecological model because
1
In the following referred to as THoR.
162
its story consists of several layers that at first sight seem to be easily
assignable to the different cultural-ecological functions Zapf describes. One level presents the story of Camagu, visitor to the rural
village Qolorha-by-Sea, who is torn between two women: Xoliswa is
oriented towards a Western lifestyle and believes in the necessity of
development; and Qukezwa, who, on the other hand, is described as
being bound to the traditional ways of the amaXhosa. The narrative is
moreover pervaded by the conflicts between WKH %HOLHYHUV DQG WKH
8QEHOLHYHUV, two groups who also propagate traditionalism and development, respectively, and whose quarrels inform this second level.
Both groups inhabit the village Qolorha-by-Sea, and their conflicts
over social and environmental policy affect the ways of local government, belief, and cultural practice in general. The triadic relationship
between Camagu, Xoliswa and Qukezwa and the social conflicts between Believers and Unbelievers are connected to a third narrative
strand concerned with the amaXhosaV colonial past, and with the
KLVWRULFDO HYHQW NQRZQ DV WKH ;KRVD &DWWOH-.LOOLQJ RI (for a
detailed account of these events, see Peires 1989).2 This event, during
which the amaXhosa sacrificed almost all of their cattle due to the
prophecy of a girl named Nonqkawuse, is represented as a struggle
between colonial and missionary influences from the British Empire
and traditional Xhosa belief systems, and the links to the two storylines set in contemporary times are remarkable in several ways. Most
important is the connection between the arrival of Camagu and the
colonial invasion of the nineteenth century, and in what follows, I will
try to account for this relation.
When Camagu appears in Qolorha-By-Sea, it seems that he is able
to negotiate the conflicts that inform the plot. As he is immersed in the
local culture, and thus his own cultural past, he begins to understand
the problems of the villagers and suggests a compromise that seems to
2
In his dedication, Mda acknowledges that he has read this book, and he calls
3HLUHV UHVHDUFK ZRQGHUIXOO\ UHFRUGHG THR 'HGLFDWLRQ $QGUHZ 2IIHQEXUJHU FODLPV WKDW LQVWHDG RI D PHUH LQIRUPLQJ 0GDV ERRN VKRZV DQ
DEXVH RI WH[WXDO ERUURZLQJV ZKLFK VLJQLILFDQWO\ >XQGHUPLQHs@ WKH QRYHOV OLWHUDU\YDOXH0GDUHVSRQGed E\PDLQWDLQLQJWKDWLWZDVDFRQVFLRXV
and overt decisLRQ>@WRUHSURGXFHKLVWRU\DVUHFRUGHGE\-HII3HLUHV WKLVLV
what LQWHUWH[WXDOLW\LVDOODERXW7KHUHIHUHQFHWRLQWHUWH[WXDOLW\LVSDUWLFXlarly interesting with regard to the concept of EnvironMentality and I will come
back to the idea in the next chapter and ask whether this is really everything intertextuality is about
The Uses of F(r)iction
163
solve the numerous conflicts: instead of a decision for or against a

:HVWHUQIRUPRISrogress, he proposes a model of green and sustainable eco-tourism that permits the villagers to retain certain traditional
customs. This solution exemplarily reintegrates the discourses the
novel engages with, and it seems that most of the aporias of postcolonial environments are indeed harmonised by it.
With a specific interest in the harmonising and reintegrating functions of postcolonial literature in general, Marion Gymnich links
=DSIVPRGHORIFXOWXUDOHFRORJ\to postcolonial theory. In an essay on
thH IXQFWLRQV RI SRVWFRORQLDO DQG LQWHUFXOWXUDO OLWHUDWXUH IURP WKH
perspective of cultural ecology (2008; my translation), she claims
WKDW=DSIVPRGHOKHOSVWREHWWHUGHVFULEHWKHSRVtulates of postcolonial literary studiesEHFDXVHRILWVIRFXVRQWKHcomplex interplay of
textual functions (118; my translation). With regard to the environmental effect of The Heart of Redness, however, it can be shown that
*\PQLFKV DVFULSWLRQ RI cultural-ecological functions to postcolonial
narratives VKRZVHVVHQWLDOLVWWUDFHVWKDWGRQRWGRMXVWLFHWRWKHWH[WV
fostering of frictions rather than reintegrative moments. These frictions concern the postcolonial environments within the text as well as
their sociocultural dimensions and the narrative strategies by means of
which these issues are represented. Therefore, my reading of The
Heart of Redness juxtaposes a cultural-ecological interpretation and
the gaps that the literary event of reading the novel entails. Ultimately,
a cultural-ecological notion of postcolonial literature, as proposed by
*\PQLFK PLVVHVWKHWHQVLRQWKDWWKHQRYHOVVWDJHGVROXWLRQHQFRmpasses, and thus, it falls short of a necessary critique of sustainable
GHYHORSPHQW DQG HFRWRXULVP LQ SDUWLFXODU DQG RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH
RWKHU, in general.
Although Camagu seems to be able to reintegrate the counterdiscursive vision and the meta-discursive criticism embodied by the
conflicting voices in the narrative, the three plotlines and the characters cannot be neatly equated with the funcWLRQDO OD\HUV RI =DSIV
model. Gymnich suggests a different perspective, anyway: she maintains that by writing back and by exploring imaginative worlds of
experience that differ from hegemonic cultural systems, postcolonial
literature per se is exemplary of the cultural-ecological functions Zapf
ascribes to literature. For The Heart of Redness, this would mean that
the novel already employs both meta- and counterdiscourses on a generic macro-level when it is UHDG DV D UHZULWLQJ RI -RVHSK &RQUDGV
Heart of Darkness (on the connection to Conrad, see Jacobs 2002;
164
Sewlall 2003). By re-appropriating a novel from the Western canon,

the re-writing offers a means of critique, and the novel complements
this criticism with an alternate perspective. According to Gymnich,
the reintegrative, interdiscursive function can be found in postcolonial
literary hybridity and VLQFHK\EULGLW\DQGWUDQVFXOWXUDOLW\KDYHEeFRPHNH\FRQFHSWVIRUWKHGHVFULSWLRQRIFXOWXUDOLGHQWLW\, these conFHSWV *\PQLFK DUJXHV VHUYH WR GHOLQHate a connection of dichotomies (Gymnich 2008: 115; my translation). One could add that by
combining a commentary on aspects of social history and cultural
negotiation with a focus on the natural, specific and local ecosystem,
the novel moreover seems to conform to the notions of double-coding
as discussed in Chapter 4.
However, tKHQRYHOVHIIHFWLYHQHVVDVDQHQYLURQPHQWDOWH[WLVQRW
bound to this form of harmonisation. It is therefore necessary to analyse how formal and structural strategies and textual motifs foster a
significant narrative effect. I argue that in The Heart of Redness, the
narration of time and history has a peculiar relation to concerns for the
environment as well as concerns for the social aspects of the characWHUV OLYHV. This relation effectively questions the very solutions the
novel offers. This has been overlooked by many critics, and it puts the
cultural-ecological orientation of Gymnich into a new perspective as it
H[SRVHVWKHEOLQGVSRWVRIUHDGLQJVWKDWHPSKDVLVHWKHQRYHOVDSSreciation of hybridity, transcultural identities and eco-touristic development (see Buell et al. 2011).
The Heart of Redness combines a narrative strand set in the nineteenth century and another one roughly identifiable as being VHW WoGD\,QRZZDQWWRdisentangle the conflictive (but nevertheless very
effective) intertwining of these temporal layers, and I will show how
the tension between these strands relates to tensions in WKH QRYHOV
plot. Primarily, The Heart of Redness is a story about not understanding the other. Conflicts abound everywhere the ongoing quarrels
between Believers and Unbelievers are exemplary of this and these
conflicts resist harmonious resolutions for two reasons: either because
they have been in existence for some generations already, or because
they touch upon a fundamental, ethical impasse (e.g. conservation of
nature and culture versus progress). The multilayered composition of
the novel and the narrative layers and timelines are coordinated by the
QRYHOV WLPH-VSDFH as Bakhtin defines it, the chronotope, which
H[SUHVVHVWKHLQVHSDUDbility of space and time (1981: 84), expresses
D VHQVH RI WKH LQWULQVLF FRQQHFWHGQHVV RI VSDWLDO DQG WHPSRUDO UHOa-
165
WLRQVKLSVBakhtin 1981: 84). And indeed, in The Heart of Redness,

names, events and even syntactic patterns are repeated or interrelate
across temporal boundaries and thus effectively suggest a form of
cyclical timeframe that is bound to the environment of Qolorha-bySea. Thus, the narrative structure suggests a certain form of mutual
comprehension and community by depicting life in Qolorha-by-Sea as
an ever-returning pattern of cyclical time. In the contact zone of traditionalist and developmentalist stances, Camagu seems to learn to understand this as he becomes acquainted with his cultural past. The
novel seems to suggest that by learning about the perceptual frames of
a culture, even a former cultural outsider can become an insider, or at
least enough of an insider to formulate a compromise for the conflicting parties. The narrative structures epitomise notions of cyclicity and
connect these to traditional systems of belief that are opposed to the
colonising discourses; these discourses also inform the narrative.
Thus, the chronotope of The Heart of Redness VXJJHVWVDspecific and
cyclic [...] idyllic time [that] possesses its own definite semicyclical
rhythm, but [which] has fused bodily with a specific insular idyllic
landscape (Bakhtin 1981: 103). 7KLV LV %DNKWLQV GHILQLWLRQ RI WKH
EXFRlic-pastoral-idyllic chronotope (103), and it seems to complement the potential of closure that Camagu eventually puts into effect
argu-ably, ecotourism favours bucolic, pastoral and idyllic places.
In fact, however, the opposite is true. The developmentalist logic
of Camagu and WKH QRYHOV FKURQRWRSH FODVK specifically due to two
conflicting conceptions of time,Q&DPDJXVYLHZRIVXVWDLQDEOHGevelopment WLPH PHDQV D FKURQRORJ\ RI SURJUHVV The other view,
however, entails the idea that history is a (semi)circular pattern of
repetition. Having identified this, it is clear why the intrusion of the
colonisers and &DPDJXV DUULYDODUH SDUDOOHOLVHG LQ WKH QDUUDWLYH Hmplotment: both events destabilise the topochronic balance. By rediscovering his Xhosa roots and with his developmentalist plans for the
YLOODJH&DPDJXLQWURGXFHVWKHFKURQRWRSHRIWKHDGYHQWXUHQRYHOLQ
HYHU\GD\ OLIH %DNKWLQ GHVFULEHV WKLV FKURQRWRSH DV LQIRUPHG E\ D
sinful life, filled with temptation, followed by crisis and rebirth
(111). Below, I will comment in more detail on this characterisation in
relation to Camagu. It suffices here to say that by staging a tension
between the two chronotopes, the text formulates a critique of the
solution proposed at the end of the novel. Since the purpose of the
DGYHQWXUH QRYHO LQ HYHU\GD\ OLIH chronotope is WR VKRZ how an
individual becomes other than what he was, and that this becoming
166
OHDYHVDGHHSDQGLUUDGLFDEOHPDUNRQWKHPDQKLPVHOIDVZHOODVRQ
his entire life (Bakhtin 1981: 115-6; emphasis orig.), it moreover
illustrates a possible motive of Camagu that betrays the superficiality
RIPRVWJUHHQUHDGLQJV&DPDJXGRHVQRWVWDQGIRUVXVWDLQDEility and
intercultural understanding; he represents a neocolonising influence.
As mentioned above, one narrative strand is concerned with the
events of the late 1850s and deals, among other things, with the arrival
RI WKH FRORQLDO SRZHUV DUP\ in Qolorha-by-Sea. The plotline set in
the present introduces Camagu as a communication specialist who
returns to post-DSDUWKHLG6RXWK$IULFDRQO\WROHDUQWKDWDSDUWKHLGKDV
EHHQ UHSODFHG E\ D V\VWHP RI FRUUXSWLRQ DQG QHSRWLVP, as Jana
Gohrisch remarks (2006: 240). He is frustrated and decides to go back
to the USA, where he had earned a PhD degree that only seems to bar
KLPIURPDIXWXUHLQ6RXWK$IULFDVLQFHWKHFRUSRUDWHZRUOGGLGQRW
want qualified blacks. They preferred the inexperienced ones who
were only too happy to be placed in some glass affirmative action
office where they were displaced as some paragons of empowerment
(THoR 33). Neither the USA nor South Africa seems WREH&DPDJXV
home and, as Michael Titlestad and Mike Kissack (2003) claim, his
situation can clearly be related to larger issues of post-apartheid development and the role of intellectuals in DSRVW-anti-DSDUWKHLGVRFiety.
Instead of actually leaving the country, however, Camagu searches
for a girl whom he heard singing the night before his planned departure and whom he instantly felt attracted to. It is this search that brings
him to Qolorha-by-Sea. His movement is significant because it is a
movement from the urban towards the rural a more natural environment and travelling to Qolorha-by-Sea IRU&DPDJXPHDQVDJoLQJ EDFN WR WKH URRWV ERWK with regard to the natural South African
environment and with regard to a social vision of traditional ways of
living. Accordingly, it is here that Camagu is confronted with his cultural past and with ostensibly traditional ways of dealing with nature.
But until he familiarises himself with his new social and natural enviURQPHQW &DPDJXV FRVPRSROLWDQLVP PHDQV HVWUDQJHPHQW DQG LVROation. It is only slowly that Camagu rediscovers his own past. Notably,
WKH G\QDPLFV RI WKLV GHYHORSPHQW DUH LQ -XULM /RWPDQV WHUPV IRstered by a crossing of borders LQWKLVFDVH&DPDJXVPRYLQJIURP
the city to Qolorha-by-Sea and his shift of focus from the present to
the past. This crossing of borders and the spatiotemporal implications
of this experience are closely related to the narrative strand set in the
167
past and the history of colonial influence with which it is concerned

for example, the lung disease that was brought to Qolorha-by-Sea by
white settlers. As Gohrisch puts it, the
QDUUDWRUMX[WDSRVHV&DPDJXVVHDUFKIRUDSODFHDQGYRFDWLRQRIKLVRZQZLWKthe
search of the Xhosa for a remedy against the lung disease and the destruction of
their traditional way of life in the wake of colonization. (Gohrisch 2006: 240)
Camagu is one of several focalisers, who perceive the story from

various temporal angles. By juxtaposing their perspectives and the
temporal layers they belong to, the intrusion of colonialism is linked
to the neo-colonialist aspects of globalisation and, consequently, the
DSSHDUDQFHRIWKHK\EULGFKDUDFWHURI&DPDJX%HFDXVHKHLVDKHrald of cosmopolitanism and globalisation alike, Camagu betrays the
problematic aspects of any notion of postcolonial hybridity that
praises the ongoing enmeshment of cultures and peoples at the cost of
a critical stance towards the system of neo-colonial globalisation politics that underlies these developments. Therefore, CamaguVFKDUDFWHU
GRHVQRWUHSUHVHQWDWKLUGVSDFHWKDWFRVPRSROLWDQHQFRXQWHUHQJHnders; he is introduced as a ruthless womaniser, torn between the mysWHULRXV DQG UXUDO 4XNH]ZD DQG WKH XUEDQ ;ROLVwa. As Sewlall
notes, the theme of imperialism thus connects both narrative strands
DQGprovides the backdrop for the exploration of subjectivity within
the context of what Mary Louise PUDWW KDV WHUPHG FRQWDFW ]RQHV
(2003: 332) as it links H[SORUDWLRQDQGH[SORLWDWLRQ.
The conflictual, tripartite character constellation significantly reVHPEOHV*KRVKVFDVWLQThe Hungry Tide, and it comes as no surprise
that these constellations (and, accordingly, the effects of emplotment)
can be directly compared. The three characters negotiate notions of
locality and belonging, intercultural encounter, and a West-oriented
stance on development. These different stances, however, are only
RVWHQVLEO\ KDUPRQLVHG E\ &DPDJXV HFRIULHQGO\, developmentalist
vision, and critical readers will be reminded of what Arturo Escobar
KDVGHVFULEHGDV>W@KHHSLVWHPRORJLFDODQGSROLWLFDOUHFRQFiliation of
economy and ecology (1995: 197). Thus, the story of Camagu,
Xoliswa and Qukezwa does not dissolve but reinforce the conflict of
not understanding that Believers and Unbelievers act out.
That these intricacies are staged by the narrative must not be overlooked. On the one hand, Camagu learns a lot about the culture of the
amaXhosa and their (his?) past, but he fails to find the woman he is
168
looking for. Instead, he engages with the environmental and political

problems of the rural village, and, eventually, he develops a new perspective on living and making a difference in local terms. Camagu
thus presents a form of rural cosmopolitanism (see Gohrisch 2006;
Titlestad & Kissack 2003; see also Johansen 2008) and his story could
also be read as one of environmentalist initiation. This teleological
reading, however, does not answer the questions that the narrative
engagement with time raises; in fact, the final chapter of the novel,
which features a magical-realist and surreal vision that merges past
and present, deconstructs the idea of development and the logic of
progress. As argued above, the chronotope of cyclic, communal exSHULHQFHWKDWLQIRUPVWKHQDUUDWLYHFROOLGHVZLWK&DPDJXVVROXWLRQ,
which he imports from his Western background.
Astrid Feldbrgge (2010) also GHVFULEHVWKHQRYHOVSDUDOOHOLVDWLRQ
of the colonial invasion (on the narrative level set in the nineteenth
century) and the invasion of global capitalism (on the level set in the
present). But when she claims that the novel eventually stages a soluWLRQE\KDYLQJ&DPDJX>HVWDEOLVK@DIRUPRIHFRWRXULVPDFRRSHUaWLYH VRFLHW\ DIWHU 4XNH]ZD RSHQs his eyes to the dangers of Western-based companies, striving for profit only, her interpretation falls
short of accounting for the tension produced by the conflict between
chronotope and developmentalist vision (Feldbrgge 2010: 154; 156).
In fact, readLQJ &DPDJXV FRQYHUVLRQ WRZDUGV HFR-awareness as the
ultimate solution for the numerous conflicts comes close to reading
3L\DVGHFLVLRQWRPRYHWRWKH6XQGDUEDQVDVDVROXWLRQWRWKHPDQifold, indissoluble problems The Hungry Tide engages with. Such a
slick ending does not suffice for an ecocritical reading of the aesthetic
potential of fiction. This potential also necessarily relies on friction,
on the gaps and tensions that characterise every textual engagement
with the world. In the case of The Heart of Redness, the equation of a
movement to the village with various movements to the individual and
communal past, nature, and cosmopolitan development produces such
a IULFWLRQ +RZHYHU DV DQ DOOHJHG UHZULWLQJ RI &RQUDGV Heart of
DarknessWKHQRYHOVVW\listic and discursive differences have mostly
been read in a different vein, namely as a recuperation of an African
voice in the history of colonialism and an engagement with postcolonial issues. I will now discuss how both readings gloss over a number
of important gaps, and that EnvironMentality requires an interpretive
engagement with these very gaps.
169
$V &DPDJXV HFRWRXULVWLF SODQV IRU 4RORUKD XOWLPDWHO\ FRQIOLFW

ZLWKWKHQRYHOVFKURQRWRSHWKHWH[WHIIHFWLYHO\TXHVWLRQVVXVWDLQDEOH
GHYHORSPHQW 7KXV WKH WH[W LOOXVWUDWHV WKH DPELYDOHQFH RI FRVPopolitan global cultural ambassadors, as Jonathan Steinwand puts it:
6WHLQZDQGDUJXHVWKDWZKLOHUHDGHUVPD\EHOXUHGE\WKHSRVWFRORQLDO
DQG WKH HFRSDVWRUDO H[RWLF, literature should be able to emphasise
RSenings and gaps where the novels [...] turn back on readers to tease
or challenge (2011: 185). The Heart of Redness produces a form of
criticism rather than solutions exactly by pointing to the gaps produced by eco-cosmopolitanism and visions of sustainable development.
*****
The Heart of Redness has been cited as an example of oratureinfluenced literature and magic realism. But while he acknowledges
the influence of orature, Zakes Mda disapproves of the label of magic
realism. Instead he maintains that his realism is simply grounded on a
different perception of reality which should be regarded as typical of
WKHPDJLFDOFXOWXUHKHZDVERUQLQWR (see Mda 1997: 281). In order
to avoid arguments on nomenclature, Harry Garuba suggests the term
DQLPLVW PDWHULDOLVP and describes this narrative technique as being
characteristic of an Africa that faces forms of re-traditionalisation,
ZKLFKKHGHILQHVDVWZRGLIIHUHQWEXWUHODWHGSURFHVVHVWKDWUXQFRncurrently in postindependence Africa (Garuba 2003: 264-5).3 On the
one hand, he identifies the assimilation of modern forms into traditional practices; RQWKHRWKHUKDQGPRUHPRGHUQHOLWHVWHQGWRUHFuperat[e] [...] traditional forms and practices (265).
Garuba understands animist-materialist writing techniques not
VLPSO\ DV DQ DHVWKHWLF IRUPXOD EXW DV D VRFLRFXOWXUDO SKHQRPHQRQ
produced and reproduced by particular institutions [...] that carry the
imprint of power and authority (286). In other words; a seemingly
SUHFRORQLDOWUDGLWLRQDOway of writing is understood as being part of
a complex web of power, authority and, possibly too, practices of
negotiating questions of identity. This complexity is also apparent on
the figural level of The Heart of Redness because Camagu, as the protagonist from the metropolis, can be read as a representative of the
3
0GDUHIHUVWRKLVVW\OHDVSRVWPRGHUQSDVWRUDO, however, and he thus adds to the

nomenclature (quoted in Wright 2010: 40).
170
new, HGXFDWHG HOLWH WKDW ZDV DOLHQDWHG IURP >LWV@ WUDGLWLRQV E\ WKHLU
Western education (Garuba 2003: 268). It seems likely that he has a
desire to re-traditionalise his personal habitus.
)URP WKDW SHUVSHFWLYH &DPDJXV HQFRXQWHU ZLWK 0DMROD KLV Wotem-snake, appears less an epiphany of reconciliation with his past
than a classic example of deliberate re-traditionalisation as described
by Garuba:
7KDW EULQJV PH WR WKLV WKLQJ DERXW 0DMROD VD\V ;ROLVZD ;LPL\D ,YH EHHQ
ZDQWLQJWRWDONWR\RXDERXWLWIRUPRQWKV
0\WRWHPVQDNH\RXPHDQ:KDWDERXWLW"
'RQW\RXWKLQN\RXDUHUHLQIRUFLQJEDUEDULVPLQWKLVYLOODJH"
7KHQ,
PDEDUEDULDQEHFDXVH,EHOLHYHLQ0DMRODLQWKHVDPHZD\What my parents before me believed in him. [...] And by the way, I have noticed that I have
gained more respect from these people you call peasants since they saw that I respect my customs (THoR 150)
The last sentence shows the instrumental value of &DPDJXVFKDQJHof-mind and sheds new light on his environmental concerns. He is
QHLWKHU FRVPRSROLWDQ QRU D SRVWFRORQLDO K\EULG FKDUDFWHU KH LV
PHUHO\FDOFXODWLQJ,KDYHJDLQHGPRUHUHVSHFW>@VLQFHWKH\VDZ,
UHVSHFWP\FXVWRPV:KLOHKLVVRFLDl existence in the USA remains
obscure and is not narrated at all, his existence in South Africa is
marked by alienation and the complex strategies to cope with this
alienation. Instead of emphasising the subversive potential of hybridity, the narrative depicts Camagu in a more ambivalent manner: he
comes to the amaXhosa village looking for a girl that he feels sexually
attracted to. His arrogant disregard for the fact that she may be married and his erotic fantasies, which overshadow any interest in her
actual life in the village, make him appear closer to the coloniser than
anything else. And so does his initial lie when Camagu introduces
himself as her ex-HPSOR\HUZKRLVORRNLQJIRUKLVSDVVSRUWLQDGYHrWHQWO\WDNHQE\WKHJLUO$WWKHEHJLQQLQJRIWKHQarrative, Camagu is
presented as a sexually insatiable character:
His unquenchable desire for flesh is well known. [...] He has done things with his
maid a frumpy country woman who has come to the city of gold to pick up a
few pennies by cleaning up [...] that he would be ashamed to tell anyone. Yet he
did these things with his humble servant again and again. There is something
DERXWVHUYLWXGHWKDWVHHPVWRVHWWKHFURWFKHVRIPHQRI&DPDJXVLONRQILUH,W
must have been the same urge that drove the slave-master [...] from his mansion to
a night of wild passion with the slave girl in the slave quarters or in the fields. Of
course it was wild passion only on his side. To the slave girl, consent was through
171
FRHUFLRQ,WZDVUDSH,Q&DPDJXVFDVHLWZDs not rape, or so he comforted himself when shame confronted him, for the servant encouraged it. She saw it as a
chance of making more money from the master. (THoR 28)
1RWRQO\GRHVWKLVSDVVDJHOLQN&DPDJXVDWWLWXGHs to women and

sexual intercourse to those of the coloniser, it also illustrates the distinction between country and city and, accordingly, between economic
power and the subjugation of seemingly consenting women who are
simSO\ VDLG WR see it as a chance of making money. Although his
attitude towards the social life of the amaXhosa and towards his own
roots as a South African man are changed by encounters with nature
and by environmental concerns, as shown above, the text does not
allow for a purely harmonious back-to-the-roots reading. Rather,
throughout the narrative, his immersion in nature and tradition is presented as an example of re-traditionalisation.4
With this tension in my mind, I now want to come back to the cultural-ecological functions ascribed to the novel and relate it to the
ambivalences the text emplots. As mentioned above, Gymnich discusses postcolonial literature with regard to its cultural-ecological
potential and claims that by employing the strategy of writing back,
postcolonial writing functions as a cultural-critical counterdiscourse.
0RUHRYHU VKH LGHQWLILHV D SROLWLFDO-ideological, functional potential
[...], which can be grasped in terms of its deviations from the pretext
DQG DFFRUGLQJO\ DV D VHPDQWLF VXUSOXV RI LQWHUWH[WXDO UHIHUHQFH
(Gymnich 2008: 111; my translation). Connecting this to the idea of
cultural criticism, Gymnich goes on to argue that the incorporation of
indigenous narrative traditions leads to canonical revision, and that
hybridity is a form of reintegrative interdiscourse.
However, while Gymnich sees such a re-semblance of traditional
forms of narrative as a means of re-ZULWLQJWKHLQGLJHQRXVWUDGLWLRQ
into memory [...] and into cultural knowledge (113; my translation),
the issues of re-traditionalisation mentioned above illustrate the problemaWLF LGHD RI DQ HDV\ UHGLVFRYHU\ DQG HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI SUHFRORQLDOQDUUDWLYHVWUDWHJLHV,QVWHDGWKHVHSURFHVVHVPXVWEHXQGHrstood as embedded in social processes that are related to power and
4
0\UHDGLQJWKXVUHIXVHVWRVHH &DPDJXDVWKHFDWDO\VWLQWKHGHFRQVWUXFWLRQRI
ERWK FRORQLDOLVP DQG QHRFRORQLDOLVP 6HZODOO 5H-traditionalisation
has so far mostly been claimed for the Unbelievers who have to invent their own
dance for lacNRIUHDOWUDGLWLRQVHH:ULJKWEXWWKLVGRHVQRWDFFRXQW
for the ambiguous role of Camagu.
172
hegemonic structures. This is why Mukherjee demands that they

should be integrated into the conFHSW RI HFR-PDWHULDOLVP WKDW LV
with DQ DZDUHQHVV RI XQHYHQ GHYHORSPHQW DQG UDPSDQW GHVWUXFWLRQ
that mark the environment (Mukherjee 2010: 14). However, I suggest
that the focus should be on the specific textual gestalt of The Heart of
Redness, which ultimately constitutes its singularity. While Camagu
seems to eventually develop an understanding of the local traditions,
at the same time, the story of the Believers and Unbelievers is denied
a happy ending in terms RI:HVWHUQZULWLQJWUDGLWLRQVDQGWKHWH[WV
topochronic contradictions belie its teleological solution. Through the
narrative structure, becoming ecologically aware and culturally integrated remains an ambivalent process that does not inevitably lead to a
solution at all since its utopian attributions are counteracted in several
ways.
The narrative follows two important conflicting lines at once.
While on the surface level of the plot, the novel narrates a developPHQWIURPQRWXQGHUVWDQGLQJWKHRWKHU%HOLHYHUVDQG8QEHOLHYHUV
the old and the young, traditionalists and progressive people, even
man and woman and, most importantly, Westerners and nonWesterners) to forms of understanding (e.g. rural cosmopolitanism),
aspects of re-traditionalisation and Western neo-colonialism permeate
this development. The narrative deep structure that is, the cyclical
chronotope uQGHUOLQHVWKLVDVLWGHFRQVWUXFWVWKHQRWLRQRISURJUHVV
DVDVROXWLRQ3URJUHVVLVVWDJHGDV a complex and dialectical struggle
between tradition and hybridity, or re-traditionalisation and neocolonialism. By opposing a cyclical chronotope and teleological plot
construction, the novel effectively emplots this tension.
A closer look at the narrative voice complements this finding. The
narrative voice is permeated by colonial influence. This key concern
RISRVWFRORQLDOFULWLFLVPLHWKHRSSUHVVLYHGLVFRXUVHRISRZHUDQG
its reverberance in cultural artefacts,5 gains significance in relation to
the conflict of (neo)colonialism and to the topochronic tension described above. Like The Hungry Tide, the narrative relies on a heterodiegetic voice to orchestrate the figural perspectives. Yet the heterodiegetic narrator in The Heart of Redness is covert and elusive. It
seems to stand for a unanimous cultural voice that represents the real
inside of the culture Camagu encounters. This may be because
5
6HH$VKFURIWHWDO*UDPVFLVFRQFHSWRIFXOWXUDOKHJHPRQ\FRPHVWR

mind here, too.
173
&DPDJXFDQQRWWUXO\EHLQVLGHDQ\FXOWXUDOV\VWHPGXHWRa hybridity
that excludes him from both the American and the African communities. However, while the text suggests that the narrative voice represents a cultural inside, the language it adopts is problematic because
the way that this voice has been formed by colonial influences belies
its ostensible insider perspective.
The narrative strategy here is free indirect discourse (see Hawthorn
1990; Sewlall 2003: 335). Harry Sewlall maintains that by virtue of
this device, the debate on culture and nature, but also issues of colonisation and cultivation, are QHJRWLDWHG E\ UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH XOWLPDWH
contingency that baffles understanding (Sewlall 2003: 335). Through
LWVDUUD\RISHUVRQDHZKRHPERG\DSRO\SKRQ\RIYRLFHVDQGYLHwpoints (335), and by having a narrative voice that interacts with this
polyphony, The Heart of Redness stages various instances of such
hybrid polyphony. When Bhonco thinks about his nkamnkam, his
pension, in the first chapter, the narrative voice takes on his thoughts
by commenting,
:K\ZRQWWKHJRYHUQPHQWJLYHKLPQNDPQNDPOLNHall the old men and women
of South Africa who are on old-age pensions today? Is it fair that now, even
though ravines of maturity run wild on his face, he should still not receive any
nkamnkam? (THoR 10)
Here, the comment can indeed be read as an instance of free indirect

speech, and comments of this kind abound regardless of the focalising subject or whether there is a single focaliser.6
This is also the case when voice and focaliser do not share the
same cultural space. In a passage set in the nineteenth century, for
example, the Xhosa soldiers encounter the colonial soldiers cutting off
the ears of a dead amaXhosa and, later, boiling his head. Dalton exSODLQVWKDWWKLVLVGRQHLQRUGHUWRKDYHVRXYHQLUVEXWDOVRIRUVFLHntific reasons. 7 This explanation is commented upon by a voice unconnected to him, an individual (and indigeneousIRFDOLVHU6RXYenirs. Scientific inquiry. It did not make sense. It was nothing but the
6
That the narration is not delivered by a heterodiegetic, internally focalised narraWLYH LQVWDQFH RU )UDQ] . 6WDQ]HOV figural narrative situation), however, is
VKRZQLQPRUHDXWKRULDOPRPHQWVZKHQWKHQDUUDWRUOHDYHVKLVFRYHUWVWDWXVWR
LQIRUPWKHUHDGHU:KLQLQJDQGZKLQJHULQJLVWKHSDVWLPe of this new democratic
society, thinks Camagu, not recognizing the fact that he was doing exactly the
same thing for the greater part of the wake(THoR 32).
The link between phrenology and cannibalism is discussed by Sewlall 2003.
174
witchcraft of the white man (THoR 20). The narrative voice does not
follow Dalton and his explanation but reflects upon it and contextualises it in an alleged Xhosa mindset.
In the context of feminist narratology, Susan Lanser has described
such a narrative voice that is neither authorial nor strictly figural as
FRPPXQDO -79). 8 I am convinced that this term can be
adapted to the context of postcolonial, re-traditionalising narrative
techniques. Here, the communal voice integrates various perceptions
and situates them in a larger, communal, context. This perceptive instance, the voice of the community, is not even restricted by time; the
narrative and its voice transcend the different time-lines and thus provide further orientation for the reader.9
However, the assumption that WKHUHLVDFRPPXQDOYRLFHWKDWLntegrates and orchestrates different individual voices implies a homogeneity that is problematic. In fact, a claim for the homogeneity of the
FRPPXQDO YRLFH LV the QDUUDWLYH HTXLYDOHQW WR &DPDJXV UHtraditionalisation because it ostensibly claims to be the WUXH Xhosa
voice that transcends individuality and overlooks the events past and
present without being affected by them. This, however, is not the
case. 7KHUHPLJKWVLPSO\QRWH[LVWDQRXWVLGHIURPZKLFKWRJDXge a
KRPRJHQRXVFXOWXUDOLQVLGH7KHUHIRUH, the communal voice itself is
affected by colonial discourses and the influence of the colonisers.
This can be seen, for example, by the role Christianity plays in the
text. Christian influences clash with ideas of homogeneity and, thus,
with the concept of a precolonial, PDJLFDO narrative tradition.
The third chapter of The Heart of Redness, for example, deals with
the missionary zeal of white people coming to Qolorha. In a descripWLRQ WKDW VHHPV WR KLQW GLUHFWO\ DW +RPL %KDEKDV GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH
/DQVHU GLVWLQJXLVKHG EHWZHHQ VLPXOWDQHRXV DQG VHTXHQWLDO YRLFH WKH ILUVW

PHDQVDILUVW-person-SOXUDOQDUUDWLRQLQDOLWHUDOZHWKDWDOORZVYRLFHVWRVSHDN
LQXQLVRQDQGWKHODWWHULVDIRUPRIQDUUDWLRQLQZKLFKHDFKYRLFHVSHDNVLQWXUQ
so thDWWKHZHLVSURGXFHGIURPDVHULHVRIFROODERUDWLQJ,V%RWKIRUPV
can be found in the The Heart of Redness, but they do not suggest a clear-FXWZH
DWDOO7KLVIRUHFORVHVWKHHVVHQWLDOLVLQJIRUFHRIWKHQDUUDWLYHZH
Notably, James Wood discusses variations of free indirect discourse, which can be
IRXQGERWKLQ&RQUDGDQGLQ0GDDVXQLGHQWLILHGIUHHLQGLUHFWVW\OHRUDVYLOODJH FKRUXV VWRULHV WROG LQ WKH YRLFH RI WKH YLOODJH FKRUXV WKRXJK ZULWWHQ
technically in authoriaO WKLUG SHUVRQ VHHP WR HPDQDWH IURP D FRPPXQLW\ >@
WKH\ DUH WKLFN ZLWK SURYHUELDO VD\LQJV WUXLVPV DQG KRPHO\ VLPLOHV - :RRG
2009: 20).
175
appropriations of religious rituals and gestus (see Bhabha 1994: 8592), the text states that
[t]he gospel men provided much entertainment everywhere they went. Whenever
they came to thHWZLQVYLOODJHWKHUHZDVJUHDWPHUULPHQWDQGSHRSOHNQHZWKDW
they were going to laugh until their ribs were painful. (THoR 48)
When the missionaries go on to discredit the traditional Xhosa cosWXPHDQGVSHDNRISURSHU(XURSHDQFORWKLQJLQVWHDGOLnking it to the

Christian notions of morality and shame, the narrative voice comPHQWVRQWKHIDFWWKDWWKHOLVWHQHUVIRXQGLWIXQQ\WKDWWKHZD\WRWKH
ZKLWHPDQVKHDYHQZas through trousers and dresses (THoR 49).
Here, it seems that the amaXhosa successfully defend their own
traditions and dismiss Christian gospel by and large. But the narrative
voice often contradicts this reading when it relates the events of the
HPLQHQW 0LGGOH *HQHUDWLRQV10 directly to Christian myth. The first
disagreement between WKH YLOODJHUV DQFHVWRUV 7ZLQ DQG 7ZLQ-Twin
can be read as being related to the biblical story of Cain and Abel (see
THoR 15), and the myth of Heitsi Eibib, the earliest prophet of the
Khoikhoi, shows traces of the Christian story of Moses:
The song told the story of how Heitsi Eibib brought his people to the Great River.
But they could not cross, for the river was overflowing. And the people said to
+HLWVL (LELE 2XU (QHPLHV DUH XSRQ XV WKH\ ZLOO VXUHO\ NLOO XV +HLWVL (LELE
SUD\HG27VLTZD)DWher of fathers. Open yourself that I may pass through, and
FORVH\RXUVHOIDIWHUZDUGV$VVRRQDVKHKDGXWWHUHGWKHVHZRUGVWKH*UHDW5LYHU
opened, and his people crossed. But when the enemies tried to pass through the
opening, when they were right in the middle, the Great River closed upon them,
and they all perished in its waters. (23)
I can of course not be sure that no comparable mythic account exists

LQWUDGLWLRQDO;KRVDFXOWXUHEXWLWVHHPVPRUHOLNHO\WRPHWKDWLnstead of successfully averting Christian influence, the narrative voice
integrates this influence into the narrative. By creating a hybrid narrative of colonisation, it thus forecloses the idea of a pure, anti-colonial
identity as claimed by re-traditionalisation. While the narrative em10
In the chronology of the story, the Middle Generations are the generations between the first instance of conflict between Twin and Twin-Twin and the presentday struggles between Zim and Bhonco. They are never explained in more detail
and thus illustrate the effect of colonialism on the communal identity of both
%HOLHYHUVDQG8QEHOLHYHUV1RWDEO\KRZHYer, the conflict had persisted during
the time of the Middle Generations.
176
ploys moments of re-traditionalising tendencies, it at the same time

meets these tendencies with a narrative voice that suggests hybrid
ways of accounting for the past and present.11
Does free indirect discourse suggest a communal voice, floating
over the political and material reality? Or does it illustrate the process
of hybridisation by presenting a discourse permeated by Christian as
well as Xhosa mythology? I suggest that the narrative voice be read in
relation to the findings above, that is, in terms RIWKHQRYHOVDWWHPSW
to stage the tension between the developmentalist logic of progress
and intercultural understanding on the one hand, and the critique of
such notions on the other. The text neither suggests a critical nor an
affirmative stance; instead, it stages the impasse and allows for its
experience. As it creates this tension, the novel both mimics and questions the uniqueness of Christian myth as well as the ability to mock
the colonialists and to remain unaffected by their culture. These instances also serve as a critical caveat as they deconstruct the nimbus
of impeccability that nostalgia for precolonial purity might confer on
WKHFRPPXQDOYRLFH12 There is no such thing as a unanimous voice
in cultures; in the context of EnvironMentality, this means that there
are no facts and no authenticity to be gained from the polyphony
within the text either, and that there is no solution for the conflict of
neo-colonialism and postcolonial entitlement, for example (cf.
Huggan & Tiffin 2010: 82-132). Instead, literature allows for an experience of these tensions and, WKXVTXHVWLRQVWKHDHVWKHWLFL]DWLRQRI
XQGHUGHYHORSPHQW (Brennan 1997: 185) just as much as the logic of
developmentalism.
*****
Just as my reading of The Hungry Tide has argued for an understanding of the world as the world-as-text, reading The Heart of Redness
11
12
It is apparent that this narrative hybridity is of a different kind than the alleged
hybridity of cosmopolitan intellectual elites that I have discussed above with
regard to processes of re-traditionalisation. The tension between these two concepts of hybridity underscores my reading of the text as an experience of friction.
,WPXVWEHQRWHGWKDW4XNH]ZDVILJKWDJDLQVWLQYDVLYHSODQWVFRUUHVSRQGVWo this
hybrid narrative voice and the desire to undo colonial influence. But she misses
WKHSRLQWWKDWUHPRYLQJDOOLQYDVLYHSODQWVSHFLHVQRWRQO\EHZRXOG>VLF@LPSRVVible, but also such an action can only operate on a metaphoric level (Wright
2010: 51).
177
VXJJHVWVDQDUUDWLYHH[SHULHQFHRIWKHSDVWSUHVHQW13 With this term,

I am not trying to assert a claim on the productivity of my neologisms;
I am rather trying to outline the various moments where descriptive
language is at a loss in its attempts to account for the in-depth experience of literary singularity. That is to say, instead of providing solutions to the aporias outlined in the first chapters and in the context of a
JHQHUDOFULWLTXHRIWKHYLROHQWKLHUDUFK\RIGLFKRWRPLHV (see Spivak
1976: lxxvi-lxxvii), narratives effectively challenge these binaries by
temporarily uniting the oppositional poles they rely on. The merging
of two temporal strands into the experience of a pastpresent is a case
in point, and it has two effects. Firstly, the characters in time become
less important as definite characters. Most obviously, this is shown by
the fact that many characters appear on both timelines: there is a nineteenth-century Dalton and a contemporary one; there is a nineteenthcentury Twin and a contemporary one LQIDFWQHDUO\HYHU\QDPHLQ
the text [...] identifies at least two characters, as Wright writes (2010:
47).14 This makes it hard to actually interpret the characters and as in
The Hungry Tide, it creates a sense that the characters are not complete or round. The text thus fulfils %XHOOVFULWHULRQWKDWLQDQHQYLURQPHQWDO WH[W KXPDQ LQWHUHVW LV QRW XQGHUVWRRG WR EH WKH RQO\ Oegitimate interest (Buell 1995: 7). Here, however, the reassessment of
human interest does not occur on the basis of an ecocentric perspective but is informed by the idea of communities and their enmeshment
in both their natural environments, as well as cultural belief systems
and influences from outside, namely, colonisation and neocolonisation.
Secondly, by this topochronic double-coding, the temporal dimensions of the text itself change too. This allows for a readerly experience of the reassessment of time in the actual process of reading. The
13
14
This neoloJLVP REYLRXVO\ UHIHUV WR +DUDZD\V QDWXUHFXOWXUH DQG ERWK WKH
ZRUOG-as-WH[WDQGWKHLGHDRIDSDVWSUHVHQWKLQWDWWKHSDUDOOHOVWKHVHFRQFHSWV
sharHLQOD\HUVRIKLVWRU\OD\HUVRIELRORJ\OD\HUVRIQDWXUHFXOWXUHVFRPSOH[LW\
is the name of ouUJDPH+DUDZD\,EHOLHYHWKDWSDUWRIWKHSRWHQWLDO
of fiction is to narrate these complexities, and I will discuss this in more detail and
ZLWK UHVSHFW WR +DUDZD\V QRWLRQV LQ WKH QH[W FKDSWHU ZKHQ , HQJDJH ZLWK WKH
FRPSOH[LWLHVRIWKHDQLPDO
:ULJKW SRLQWV WR WKH IDFW WKDW WKH UHDGHU FDQQRW PDNH RQH-to-one correlations
EHWZHHQ RU GUDZ RSSRVLWLRQDO DVVXPSWLRQV DERXW LGHQWLFDOO\ QDPHG FKDUDFWHUV
(47) because time is so heavily fragmented. This adds to my argument of the
readerly share in the meaning of the temporal narration.
178
discourse time (i.e. the time needed to read through roughly 300
pages) remains the same, but the story time is drastically reduced because the cyclical form of emplotment suggests that both story lines
can be understood as a single one. Understanding the two strands of
time to be inextricably interrelated thus also necessitates reassessing
WKH FRQFHSW RIWLPH LQWKHSURFHVV RI UHDGLQJ 7KHSDVWSUHVHQW DVD
concept of cultural otherness becomes feasible whereas the logic of
progress loses plausibility.15 $V:ULJKWPDLQWDLQVDOLQHDUQRWLRQRI
time is disrupted and the mythic becomes the present reality. [...] The
narrative ends both in the past and the present (Wright 2010: 47).
Basically, The Heart of Redness thus stages a topochronic version of
WKH HFRORJLFDO PRWWR WKDW HYHU\WKLQJ LV FRQQHFWHG ZLWK HYHU\WKLQJ
HOVH
7KLV SDVWSUHVHQW LQWHUFRQQHFWHGQHVV GHFRQVWUXFWV WKH YDULRXV
dualities within the narrative, for instance, the conflict between Zim
and Bhonco, and the conflict between Believers and Unbelievers. It is,
PRUHRYHU DW WKH VDPH WLPH HFRORJLFDO DQG FDUQLYDOLVWLF WKH GLscourses that create the heteroglossia of the text have their counterparts
in the textual composition, which is palimpsestic (nineteenth century
versus contemporary events) and diglot (English narrative and Xhosa
vocabulary) (see Wright 2010: 43). The friction produced by this
struggle for meaning is an important interpretive challenge and links
to =DSIV GLVFXUVLYH IRFXV DQG %DNKWLQV QRWLRQ RI KRZ WH[WXDO GLaORJLFLW\ WUDQVFHQGV LGHRORJ\ 0RUHRYHU WKURXJK LWV PHWRQ\PLF Gimensions [as the] equivalent of backwardness and the absence of
enlightenment (Sewlall 2003: 338), WKHKHDUWRIUHGQHVVHSLWomises
WKH QRYHOV HQJDJHPHQW ZLWK WKH GLOHPPD RI QRW XQGHUVWDQGLQJ ,W
does not stand for the colonial myth of bestiality any more but is a
self-LQIOLFWHG GHURJDWLRQ WKDW OLQNV ZLWK WKH LGHRORJ\ RI XQGHUGHYHlRSPHQWDQGSURFHVVHVRIQHR-colonialism. It thus re-writes the trope
established in Heart of Darkness and complements its colonial metacommentary with a comment on neo-colonial, retraditionalising discourses in post-Apartheid South Africa.
The clash of spatial or temporal perception and conflicts between
developmentalism and cosmopolitanism connects my reading of The
Heart of Redness with my reading of The Hungry Tide. In both interpretations, I have sought to explore the means of narrating the
15
The achronic narration adds to this since it is the reader who has to order and
FRQVWUXFWWKHWH[WVFKURQRORJ\.
179
world-as-text and its spatial and temporal dimensions. While I have

questioned essentialist notions of nostalgia and uncritical visions of
cosmopolitanism, my readings have emphasised the role of the interSUHWLYH QHJRWLDWLRQV RI WKH WKUHDW RI PHODQFKROLD (Desai 2004) for
pristine ecosystems, and they have exSUHVVHGWKHUHFLSURFLW\EHWZHHQ
text and environment [...] as rhetoric, as performance, and as worldmaking (Buell 2008: 45).
While it is also possible to discuss the spatial emplotments in
0GDV QRYHOV WKH FRQFHSWXDOLVDWLRQ DQG HYHQWXDO QDUUDWLYLVDWLRQ of
time plays an important role in Ghosh too. Rajender Kaur, for inVWDQFHDUJXHVWKDW*KRVKVODQJXDJHGUDZVVWUDWHJLFDWWHQWLRQWRWKH
contrast between the often short-sighted, hurly burly of postcolonial
politics and the more uQKXUULHGGHHSWLPHRIJHRORJ\ (Kaur 2007:
126).16 This is not the place for a detailed discussion of these aspects
but they have to be mentioned as important aspects of the hermeneutic
scope of reading. Rob Nixon has described the result of the negotiation of spatial and WHPSRUDO QDUUDWLYH WUDFHV DV D SURIRXQG WHQVLRQ
[that] arises between economic, historical, and psychological impulses (2011: 177), and it is this tension that informs the hermeneutics of EnvironMentality too.
*****
0\WRSRFKURQLFUHDGLQJRI0GDV novel also reveals the text to be an
uneven environment: it has mapped clefts and gaps that have to be
filled with meaning in the interpretive process. As a consequence,
UHDGLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO WH[WV PHDQV DQ XQVHWWOLQJ H[SHULHQFH UDWKHU
than a validation of a predetermined moral stance. I will supplement
this idea by discussing selected passages from MdaV The Whale
Caller17 in order to make a theoretical point for the hermeneutics of
EnvironMentality and because I want to expand the scope of
16
17
.DXUSRLQWVWR-DPHV+XWWRQDQG&KDUOHV/\HOOZKHQKHGLVFXVVHVGHHSWLPHDV
DQ HYRFDWLYH FRQFHSW LQ JHRORJ\ WKDW FDQ SURYLGH LQVLJKWV LQWR UH-YLVLRQLQJ
sociopolitical events and their enmeshment with the environments in which they
are situated (126). With regard to The Hungry Tide, he argues that the novel
HYRNHVDWRQFHERWh the trans-KLVWRULFDOYLVWDVRIGHHSWLPHDQGWKHPXWDELOLW\
RIQDWXUHWKURXJKLWVLQVSLUHGFKRLFHRIWKH6XQGDUEDQVDVWKHORFDOHRIWKHQRYHO
(126). For the relevance of concepts of geological deep time with regard to the
SRVVLELOLW\WRKDYHSORW ZLWKRXWPDQ, see Beer (2009: 17 and passim).
In the following referred to as TWC.
180
topochronic readings to some aspects of becoming-animal (and a critique thereof). Before moving on, however, I need to draw attention to
the commentary The Heart of Redness provides on human-animal
relations (for this, see also Feldbrgge 2010; Woodward 2003). After
all, the crucial event that divides Believers and Unbelievers in the first
place is the cattle killing. In the course of the events that follow NonTNDZXVHV SURSKHF\ WKH DPD;KRVD KDYH GLVUXSWHG WKH WUDGLWLRQDO
relationship with their animals as well as the chain of cultural significance that had linked these animals to their cultural practices. Besides,
WKHFKDUDFWHUVUHDFWLRQVWRWKHGHDWKRISDUWLFXODUDQLPDOVDUHUHPDUkable textual events. However, these accounts must also be read in the
context of temSRUDOQDUUDWLYHVWDJLQJ,QIDFW1RQTNDZXVHVSURSKHF\
and the subsequent events gain significance through their connection
with the postcolonial/neo-colonial narrative of post-apartheid South
Africa, and this connection suggests a more materialist reading instead
of a reading that focuses on mythic and traditional aspects of humananimal relations.
2Q WKH RQH KDQG 1RQTNDZXVHV DQG 0NODND]DV SROLWLFDO Hnmeshment with, for example, King Sarhili shows that the cattle killing
events are less a story of religious belief let alone an animal narrative than a socio-political history that connects to aspects of ideology (see THoR 76-9). On the other hand, the second crucial event in
the history of the amaXhosa the lungsickness that befalls the animals, among them Twin-7ZLQV EHORYHG KRUVH *[DJ[D is also diUHFWO\FRQQHFWHGWRFRORQLDOKLVWRU\:KLWHSHRSOHNQHZRIOXQJVLFkness because it came from their country. [...] It was brought to the land
of the amaXhosa nation by Friesland bulls that came in a Dutch ship
two years earlier (50). Despite their significance for the individual
GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH QRYHOV FKDUDFWHUV HVSHFLDOO\ &DPDJX WKH DQimals in The Heart of Redness serve to second postcolonial commentary, and with regard to double-coding, they function as symbols of
and references to socio-political issues.18
18
A different stance is maintained by Woodward (2003) who argues that the animals
in The Heart of Redness are more important than my reading suggests. Locating
the DQLPDOUROHEHWZHHQWKH'HUULGHDQLGHDRIWKHDQLPDODVWKHZKROO\RWKHUDQG
a questioning of a seemingly bucolic, precolonial form of ecological living, she
UHDGV0GDVQDUUDWLYHVRIKXPDQDQLPDOHQFRXQWHUDVRQHZD\RIPDLQWDLQLQJWKH
ERRNVPRUDOV(FRORJLFDOHWKLFVOLQNHGZLWKVRXQGHFRQRPLFV0GDVXJJHVWV
is the only way forward for the villagers of Qolorha (294). However, my somewhat more critical reading of the idea of development brings into light the instru-
181
This seems to be an example of what Jonathan Steinwand means

ZKHQKHVSHDNVRIWKHLQHYLWDEOHVOLSSDJHRIWUDQVODWLon in relating to
animal others 6WHLQZDQG GLVFXVVHV WKLV slippage of
translation with regard to the whale motifs in Ghosh and Mda, linkLQJLWWR%XHOOVGLVFXVVLRQRIKXPDQLPDJLQDWLRQVRIZKDOHVDQGWKHLU
IDVFLQDWLQJDOWHULW\>@DVFUHDWXUHVRIDUDGLFDOO\GLIIHUHnt scale inhabiting a radically different medium (Buell 2001: 203; Steinwand
2011: 182). The tragic relationship of the Whaler Caller to his beloved
ZKDOH6KDULVKDLQ0GDVThe Whale Caller, exemplifies the failure of
cross-species understanding and, thus, to some extent it results from
animal otherness. It is this incommensurability of the different umwelten that, despite the comical and absurd elements of the novel, leaves
WKHUHDGHUVDGGHUDQGZLVHU, as Steinwand claims (192).
I will trace this process in my reading of The Whale Caller and
then return to this idea in more detail in the next chapter. With regard
to my critique of becoming-animal, it is important to note that the
narrative power of the texts discussed here is closely related to their
staging of the impossibility of border crossings and permanent transgressions. In A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze and Guattari argue that
the reality of becoming-DQLPDOOLHVLQWKDWZKLFKVXGGHQO\VZHHSVXV
XSDQGPDNHVXVEHFRPH (1988: 279) but what it actually does, let
alone what it is, remains vague.19 Forced into the light of actual and
material circumstances, the problematic aspects of these concepts
become visible especially in The Whale Caller, where a humananimal relationship is presented in terms of sexual desire, the ludiFURXV DEVXUGLW\ RI VXFK FRQFHSWV DQG WKH LQVWUXPHQWDO FKDUDFWHULVaWLRQ LQ KXPDQ QDUUDWLYHV (Baker quoted in Huggan & Tiffin 2010:
19
mental value of imagined kinship with animals in the way proposed by Woodward. However, her argument that the significance of animals can be understood
by juxtaposing the socio-cultural and individual meanings conferred upon three
classes of animals namely, bulls, horses and birds is very convincing. Especially WKHQXPHURXVUHIHUHQFHVWRELUGVRQJDQG=LPVOLYLQJPRVWO\EHQHDWKDWUHH
inhabited by birds are noteworthy in this regard.
Deleuze and Guattari would probably argue that it is not necessary to outline this
concept that way. As Baker (2002) PDLQWDLQV>W@KHUHDOUDGLFDOLVPRIWKHFRQFHSW
lies not in its reframing of the question of living subjects and their identities, but
rather in its charting the possibilities for experiencing an uncompromising sweeping-away of identities (67-8). If, however, becoming-DQLPDOLVOLWWOHPRUHWKDQD
means of undoing identity, I prefer the vocabulary introduced above to theirs
EHFDXVH WKH FRQFHSWV RI WKH HYHQW RI ILFWLRQ DQG DUWV VLQJXODULW\ GR VXJJest the
same without instrumentalising notions of animality for the sake of art criticism.
182
198) betray the idealistic notions of becoming-animal. Thus, animals

LQ ILFWLRQ UHVLVW ERWK their literal and textual capture by humans,
WKZDUWLQJKXPDQLQWHQWLRQZKHQLWEHFRPHVQHFHVVDU\ (Baker quoted
in Huggan & Tiffin 2010: 198). I am interested in this resistance and
its relation to spatiotemporal emplotments.
Becoming-animal RU WKH XQFompromising sweeping-away of
LGHQWLWLHV %DNHU LQIRUPV 0GDV The Whale Caller, too,
and it does so already on the broadest formal level. Is it a love story or
GRHVLWDV:HQG\:RRGZDUGZULWHVUHSUHVHQWDUHODWLRQVKLSRIORving biosociality between a human and a whale but is, ultimately, a
FDXWLRQDU\WDOH":RRGZDUG,WVGDUNDQGYLROHQWHQGLQJ
FRPHVDVDVKRFNIRUVXUHEXW, at the same time, absurd, tragic
and violent elements have abounded in the narrative from its opening
sentence: 7KHVHDLVEOHHGLQJIURPWKHZRXQGVRI6KDULVKDTWC 3).
As I will show, the disorientation that stems from the numerous transgressions the novel narrates stems to a large part from several accounts of becoming-animal that are, however, not presented as a liberating undoing of identities but as a fatal disregard of borders and, ultimately, as a tragic catastrophe.
As in the novels discussed above, The Whaler Caller features another tripartite relationship; only this time, one of the three is not a
human being but an animal: the southern right whale Sharisha. Sharisha is the object of adoration for the eponymous Whale Caller of the
town of Hermanus but in the course of the narrative the Whale Caller
DOVRIDOOVLQORYHZLWK6DOXQLWKHYLOODJHGUXQN7HUULEO\MHDORXVRI
WKDW VWXSLG ILVK 6DOXQL FXUVHV 6KDULVKD UHSHDWHGO\ DQG XOWLPDWHO\
Sharisha dies. It remains unclear, however, what effect her curses had
RQ 6KDULVKD DQG LW VHHPV PRUH OLNHO\ WKDW LW ZDV WKH :KDOH &DOOHUV
love and his desire that caused the whale to beach. This, at least, is
what the Whale Caller believes. However, whether this is true,
ZKHWKHU6DOXQLVFXUVHVSOD\HGDUROHRUZKHWKHU6KDULVKDVEHDFKLQJ
KHUVHOILVQRWKLQJPRUHWKDQDFRQVHTXHQFHRIWKHIUHDNZDYHWKDWKit
+HUPDQXVUHPDLQVXOWLPDWHO\XQUHVROYHG
7KH :KDOH &DOOHUV ORYH IRU 6KDULVKD H[FHHGV WKH V\PSDWK\ IRU
FKDULVPDWLF PHJDIDXQD DQG DSSHDUV DV DQ $KDE-OLNH PRQRPDQLD
instead (Huggan & Tiffin 2010: 198). While they are depicted in
clearly sexual terms and, thus, are at the same time disturbing and
WUDJLFDOO\ IXQQ\ WKH :KDOH &DOOHUV HPRWLRQV DOVR LOOXVWUDWH WKH Lnstrumentalisation of animals in the context of an imaginary becominganimal (see Huggan & Tiffin 2010: 198). As a result of the Whale
183
Caller forcing his ideas of love and attachment onto the animal, Sharisha loses her life, Saluni her sight, and the Whale Caller his dwelling
place.
As in the other texts discussed so far, the interrelations and demarcations of the characters, both among themselves and with regard to
their environments, are manifold and complex. Both Saluni and the
Whale Caller, for instance, share an almost addictive affection for
something outside their relationship with each other: the Whale Caller
yearns for Sharisha, and Saluni needs to visit the Bored Twins regularly and sing or play with them. Also, both have links to religious
belief; not only by confessing to the mock-Christian idol Mr Yodd but
also because Saluni practices magic to manipulate the Whale Caller
and 6KDULVKDDQGEHFDXVHRIWKH:KDOH&DOOHUVYHU\RZQSUDFWLFHRI
EORZLQJ WKH KRUQ GHYHORSHG IURP KLV VHUYLFH IRU WKH &KXUFK RI WKH
6DFUHG .HOS +RUQ VHH TWC 7-12). Moreover, the sensual experiences of both characters are connected: while the Whale Caller relies
on his olfactory sense after all, he falls for Saluni because of her
PRXOG\\HWVZHHWVPHOOWKDWLVHYHQVWURQJHUWKDQWKHIRUFHRIHnHUJ\ JHQHUDWHG E\ WKH URFNV 6DOXQLV SHUFHSWLRQ LV SULPDULO\
visual, as her fear of darkness and the episode of her temporary blindness underline. It is during her blindness, when the Whale Caller and
Saluni take a long, nomadic walk that their perceptive habits change
DQG WKXV VXJJHVW D IRUP RI PXWXDO FRPSOHWLRQ 6DOXQL smells the
ocean and the Whale Caller sees it down below extending for kilometres LQWRWKHKRUL]RQHPSKDVHs added). However, this reciprocal understanding does not last long, and the tragic catastrophe at
hand belies this romantic turn of events.
It is important to look at SharisKDVUROHLQWKLVFRQWH[W6KDULVKDV
main sense is auditive, which shows most obviously when she reacts
WR WKH :KDOH &DOOHUV VRQJ E\ GDQFLQJ DQG exuberantly approaching
the coast. However, the forms of cross-species communication as well
as the mutual understanding between the Whale Caller and Saluni
waver between the absurd and the tragic. Saluni introduces the Whale
&DOOHUILUVWWRZLQGRZ-VKRSSLQJDQGODWHUHYHQWRZLQGRZ-GLQLQJ,
a visual spectacle that he does not comprehend. Moreover, the text
states that in the moments of shared joy, they become sick of each
RWKHU (YHQ PRUH ULGLFXORXV DUH WKH :KDOH &DOOHUV DWWHPSWV WR Dpproach Sharisha: after exhausting dances for Sharisha in his ironed
WX[HGRDVWKHQDUUDWLYHYRLFHSXWVLWDPDWLQJULWXDODfter which the
:KDOH&DOOHULVGUHQFKHGLQVZHDWDVKLVKRUQHMDFXODWHVVRXQGVWR
184
ZKLFK6KDULVKDHPLWVDYHU\GHHSKROORZVRXQGTWC 41), he actually ejaculates (TWC 66). On another occasion, he witnesses the copulation of Sharisha with another whale IRU KLP LW LV UDSH DQG KH
ZDONV DURXQG FU\LQJ 7KH\ KDYH UDYDJHG 6KDULVKD RQO\ WR UHDOLVH
ODWHUWKDWKHZDVWKHUHDW>WKHFDOIV@FRQFHSWLRQ+HZDVDSDUWLFLSDQW
ZLWKKLVKRUQ+HIHHOVOLNHDIDWKHUDOUHDG\1RWRQO\DUHWKRVH
moments of imagined sexual contact between human and animal described as ludicrous and grotesque, the text ridicules the very metaphors the Whale Caller employs the Kelp horn as a phallus, his song
as semen as the shallow literary devices they are, for example by
having the sea birds literalO\ VKLW RQ KLV PRFN-5RPDQWLF ILWV WKH
grey doves with black wings and the white seagulls with grey wings
[...] share his excitement by hovering over him, and defecating on his
KHDG
Another instance of a vain attempt to romanticise and eventually
cross the species boundary is presented when the Whale Caller tries to
FRXUW6KDULVKDZLWKWKHPDWLQJULWXDORIGLQLQJ
He rents a small round table and a chair from the marketplace stallholders. He
bribes a waiter from the restaurant that juts into the sea on stilts to lend him the
best silver and crystal just for a few hours. [...] He lays a table of seafood and the
best of Cape Chardonnay [...]. He is in black tie. [...] He lights a candle. (137)
7KLVLVGRQHEHFDXVH>K@HKRSHVWKDWE\>@PDNLQJDSXEOLFGLVSOD\
RISXEOLFHDWLQJ6KDULVKDZLOOEHDURXVHGWRDFWLRQRQFHPRUH
The rituals the Whale Caller tries to transform for his own purposes
betray the vanity of such attempts of becoming-animal and maybe hint
DW WKH IDFWWKDW WKH PRVWSURIRXQG WUDJHG\ LQ WKH VWRU\ LV WKHODFN
>@RIDQLQGLJHQRXVHFRORJLFDOWUDGLWLRQWKDWFDQVDYHHDUWKRWKHUV
as Woodward presumes (2007: 300).
That these border crossings and the tragicomic effects on which
they rely call into question both the very act of becoming as well as
the binary logic on which this attempt is based can be shown in the
various deconstructions of dichotomies that the text represents: the
parallel of touristic exploitation (the Whale Crier) and allegedly true
love (the Whale Caller), for instance, or the parody of religions and
myth (the Church of the Sacred Kelp Horn as well as Mr Yodd) and
the problems of greed and despiritualised behaviour (the poacher who
wants more money and Saluni who wants more love).
185
,QGHHGWKHQRYHOSUHVHQWVQRVLPSOHIRUPXODIRUKDUPRQ\DPRQJ
WKRVH RI ODQG DQG VHD DV 6WHLQZDQG REVHUYHV DQG E\
EOXUULQJWKHERXQGDULHVEHWZHHQURXWLQHDQGULWXDOWKHZLOGDQGWKH
tame, the sublime and the ULGLFXORXV Steinwand 2011: 190), the
novel destabilises such concepts as understanding, compassion or
UHVSRQVLELOLW\DVLWVS\KRSVXVZKDOH-watching readers with its satirical and ironic twists [...] to unsettle our comfortable complicity in
postcoloniDO DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO MXVWLFH 'HVSLWH WKH IHZ Uemarks on environmental ethics or the sociocultural problems of animal
rights, this unsettling is indeed mainly achieved through its textual
form, which combines parallelisms and, most importantly, an unstable
WUDJLFRPLF WRQH WKDW FRQVWDQWO\ TXHVWLRQV WKH QRYHOV LQWHUHVW LQ Poments of becoming-animal. The most fatal transgression of all is of
FRXUVH 6KDULVKDV DFWXDO OHDYLQJ RI KHU HQYLURQPHQW ZKLFK OHDGV WR
her suffering and eventual death. The Whale Caller has indulged so
much in becoming-DQLPDO DQG XQGRLQJ LGHQWLW\ %DNHU
that he no longer perceives any difference between human and animal,
DQG UHDOLW\ DQG ILFWLRQ %\ VKHHU IRUFH RI KLV LPDJLQDWLRQ KH ZLOO
bring Sharisha into being right LQIURQWRIKLPKHDVVHUWVDWWKHHQG
of the novel (TWC +LVH\HVDUHVRWLJKWO\FORVHGWKHWH[WJRHV
on, that
he is not aware that Sharisha herself has come to save him [...] As he blows the
horn furiously and uncontrollably she comes swimming just as furiously. [...] She
is too mesmerised to realise that she has recklessly crossed the line that separates
the blue depth from the green shallows. [...] At first he thinks he has conjured her
up in his imagination. But when he hears the deep bellows that send tremors to the
muddy peninsula he knows she is all too real. [...] She has beached herself. (216)
Remarkably, this crossing of boundaries, this inversion of the

process of becoming-animal a form of failed becoming-human not
only undoes identity once and for all; the text likewise suggests that
there might be too much closeness between human and animal. The
narrative mood underlines this. While focalisation varies between
Saluni and the Whale Caller as well as a rather covert heterodiegetic
narrator, the constructedness of SharishaV perspective remains obvious throughout. Never can readers forget that the effect the Whale
Caller hopes his songs to have on Sharisha might at least partially be
imagined; the phallic and eroticising language of his encounters with
the whale strikes us as comic and grotesque rather than romantic.
What is more, her deep bellowing and the fact that Sharisha stays in
186
Hermanus for one year do not allow us or the Whale Caller to understand her, ultimately; WKH:KDOH&DOOHUVLQWHUSUHWDWLRQV rather emphasise the constructedness of understanding. The fact that he wrongly
assumes her to have given birth to a calf that she might have lost in an
accident with a ship further underscores the limits of understanding
(see TWC 129; 138-9).
However, the passage quoted above is one of the few passages in
which this limit of understanding is transcendeG 6KDULVKD LV WRR
PHVPHULVHGWRUHDOLVHWKDWVKH KDVUHFNOHVVO\ FURVVHGWKHOLQH (THC
216) this sentence features focalisation through Sharisha. And just
DV LQ WKH VFHQH ZKHUH 6DOXQL PRRQV WKH ZKDOH OHDYLQJ WKH SRRU
whale looking scandalised. The calf is oblivious of ZKDWLVKDSSHQLQJ
(155), this almost direct access to the animal mind comes with a moment of transgression or becoming-animal on the part of the human
FKDUDFWHUV ZKR WRJHWKHU ZLWK 6KDULVKD IRUP WKH HWHUQDO WULDQJOH
PDQ ZRPDQ DQG ZKDOH %XW WKLV GLUHFW DFFHVV LV WRR FORVH D
form of contact. When the Whale Caller realises this, it is already too
late for SharisKD%XWLWLVQRWWRRODWHIRUKHUFDOIRXWWKHUHLQWKHVHD
KHFDQVHH6KDULVKDV\RXQJRQHVDLOLQJVORZO\WRZDUGVKLPPDNLQJ
ripples to the rhythm of his horn. He stops playing. He must not enVODYHWKH\RXQJRQHZLWKKLVNHOSKRUQ7KXVKHWXUQs into the
+HUPDQXV SHQLWHQW EHUHIW RI KXPDQ DV ZHOO DV DQLPDO ORYH
and even his belief in the mythic Mr Yodd.
A last binary construction is important from a form-oriented angle:
In Hermanus, whale watching has turned into a touristic spectacle
whereas once, it used to be a religious event. As the first chapter tells
XVEHIRUHWKHUHZHUHERDWVDQGILVKHUPHQDQGZKDOHUVWKH.KRLNKRL
RI ROG ZRXOG GDQFH DURXQG D EHDFKHG ZKDOH 'DQFLQJ WKHLU
thanks to Tsiqua, He Who Tells His Stories in Heaven, for the bountiful food he occasionally provides for his children by allowing whales
WRVWUDQGWKHPVHOYHV7KLVDFFRXQWRIDQDOPRVWSUHODSVDULDQVWDWH
when humans and animals existed side-by-side and the nostalgia with
which the Whale Caller imagines these times link animality and sacrifice. It is their god who presents a whale as a gift to his people, but if
WRR PDQ\ ZKDOHV DUH VWUDQGHG WKH HFVWDWLF GDQFH IUHH]HV DQG WKH
ODXJKWHULQWKHH\HVRIWKHGDQFHUVPHOWVLQWRWHDUV7KHVHWLPHV
are now long gone and mourned by the Whale Caller. It is the reader,
in another moment of the diegetic leap discussed above, who understands that these times are anything but over. But it is no longer a god
:KR7HOOV+LV6WRULHVQRZLWLVWKHZULWHURIILFtion who, through
187
his fiction, creates and maps the world. It is the writer, too, who nourishes his people through tradition, re-traditionalisation and by creatLQJ QHZ QDUUDWLYHV DQG PHWDSKRUV WR OLYH E\ $QG OLNH WKH JRGV RI
old, the writer has to strand a whale to nourish the readers and leave
WKHPVDGGHUDQGZLVHULQ6WHLQZDQGVZRUGV7KLVKDV
nothing to do with a moment of ecstatic becoming-animal; on the contrary, the ecstasy and exuberance of this very stance is shown to lead
to nowhere in the end. If border crossings and moments of becoming
are possible, as the novel suggests, then they might well have led to
6KDULVKDVGHDWK%XWWKH:KDOH&DOOHULVQRWWKHRQO\RQHWREODPH
We, as readers, desperately seek to understand the animals in fiction
as well and grapple, as it were, with moments of becoming-animal.
And so does the narrator. The one who tells stories beaches a whale in
fiction, and in understanding the tragic complicity of well-meant attempts at becoming-animal, indeed ouU H[XEHUDQFH IUHH]HV DQG WKH
ODXJKWHU>@PHOWVLQWRWHDUV
7. Negotiating the Human-Animal Boundary:

Intertextuality and Metafiction in
Life of Pi and Beatrice and Virgil
Reviewing and discussing twentieth-century animal narratives and
how they are discussed in ecocriticism and animal studies, Rebecca
Raglon and Marian Scholtmeijer describe how animal advocacy and
environmentalism have developed along separate lines. However, they
DUJXH IRUWKHQHFHVVLW\ RI H[SDQGLQJ >@WKH VHQVH RI WKH IDPLO\ RU
EHLQJ of humans and animals (Raglon & Scholtmeijer 2007: 121) in
both ecocriticism and critical animal studies. One starting point for
such an expanded sense of family or being is the idea of a biological
continuum between humans and what is sweepingly summarised as
animals.1 Certainly, narratives that question a fundamental separateness of human and animal beings are not new, and the idea of community has recurred in the human imagination from the time of the
earliest animal fables up to today. Besides, the role of animals in the
texts discussed so far underscores the significance of animal narratives
in the context of EnvironMentality. In the context of postcolonial
criticism KRZHYHU DVVHUWLQJ D FRQWLQXXP EHWZHHQ KXPDQ EHLQJV
DQG DQLPDO RWKHUV LV SUREOHPDWLF =RRPRUSKLVP RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH
colonisers has been a powerful tool to degrade the colonised, and a
sense of an expanded family of human and nonhuman animals seems
tROLQNZLWKFODLPVRIWKHEHVWLDOLW\RIWKHFRORQLVHGDQGZLWKUDFLVW
discourses (see Spiegel 1996).
This is why postcolonial critics oppose equations such as the asVXPSWLRQ WKDW RSSUHVVHG DQLPDOV VKDUH WKH IDWH RI RSSUHVVHG Kumans. Not only does it misunderstand what we think we know about
animal nature, it also disrespects human suffering (Ahuja 2009: 556;
Armstrong 2002; Huggan & Tiffin 2010: 163-84). Moreover, such an
1
Famously, Derrida has called into question the view WKDW WKH DQLPDO FDQ EH
VSRNHQ RI LQ WKH JHQHUDO VLQJXODU DQG GHFODUHV LW SHUKDSV RQH RI WKH JUHDWHVW
and most symptomatic asinanities of those who call themselves human(Derrida
2008: 41; emphasis orig.).
190
equation relies on various forms of worlding and othering. For postcolonial ecocriticism, this is a fundamental impasse. This impasse
bears resemblance to the aporia of anthropocentric versus ecocentric
thinking because it also struggles with a subjective and human perspective and the attempt to appropriate the perspective of the other.
So, while an engagement with the idea of a community of humans and
animals seems to be necessary from an ecocritical point of view, objections from postcolonial criticism reveal the dangers of both zoomorphism and anthropomorphism by linking their rhetoric with the critique of the colonial practice of othering.
It is with this potential conflict in mind that the aesthetic rendering
of empathy and community in fiction will be scrutinised in the following. In the preceding chapters, my critical discussion of notions of
becoming-animal has called claims for similarity into question, and I
DJUHH ZLWK &RUD 'LDPRQG WKDW >W@KH PRUDO H[SHFWDWLRQV RI RWKHU
KXPDQ EHLQJV GHPDQG VRPHWKLQJ RI PH DV RWKHU WKDQ DQ DQLPDO
(1978: 478) tension-ridden as such an assertion may be. The Heart
of Redness and The Whale Caller juxtaposed ideas of becoming and
narratives of development through their narrative structure and the
emplotment of various borders and border-drossings. The Bakhtinian
idea of topochronic poetics and the problem of transgressing semiospheres and umwelten were introduced to the concept of EnvironMentality and linked to form-oriented readings and avenues of
readerly interpretation. This chapter is concerned with processes
of readerly empathy too, and it will describe the processes that lead to
EnvironMentality with regard to the idea of an expanded sense of family, that is, with regard to the idea of human-animal communities in
fiction.
This does not mean that this chapter is solely concerned with fictional examples of such communities; rather, it will present fictional
ways of rendering a communal sense tangible in the act of reading.
Thus, this chapter ties in with and complements my other readings.
The Hungry Tide successfully negotiates the human place within nature, and it does so by discursively merging deep ecological and social
ecological aspects and presenting them in a narrative form that renders
WKHHQYLURQPHQWWH[WXDO7KXVLWKHOSV us to understand the inextricability of nature DQG FXOWXUH DQG DOORZV IRU D OLWHUDO UHDGLQJ RI
place. However, I have questioned the concept of human culture as a
universalism by taking into account different cultural settings and by
criticising notions of intercultural, ecological visions. After all, this
Negotiating the Human Animal Boundary
191
VWXG\VHHNVWRHODERUDWHRQWKHKHUPHQHXWLFLGHDRIPHUJLQJWKHKRUi]RQV LQ D SRVWFRORQLDO-ecocritical context. This means that an engagement with nature and culture is only possible if the concepts of
WKHQDWXUDODQGWKHFXOWXUDODUHVXEMHFt to hermeneutic scrutiny as
ZHOO&XOWXUHLVQRWthe monolithic opposite of a likewise monolithic
entity of nature; both concepts have to be understood as a product of
constant negotiation and individual as well as communal perception
and performances. These complexities are epitomised in the depiction
of spatiotemporal relations in The Heart of Redness, for example. As a
consequence, it appears sensible to apply topochronic poetics to postcolonial ecocriticism and EnvironMentality. In discussing The Heart
of Redness from that perspective, I have commented on the idea of
different cultural settings and their representation (via communal narrative voice as well as by describing the temporal anomalies of the
story). By the same token, I have demonstrated the importance of textual gaps and tensions in order to differentiate between a negotiation of
FRPPRQ PHDQLQJ (Gadamer 1994: 292) and the idea of ecocosmopolitan appropriation and becoming.
In what follows, I want to further explore ways of narrating that do
not rely on such forms of appropriation or the concept of becoming as
criticised in my reading of The Whale Caller. I will discuss narratives
that critically question their own status as fiction and that are thus
capable of both evoking a sense of human-animal community and
formulating a critique of the attempts at doing so. This will be
achieved through an experience of KXPDQLPDOity dwelling on the
fuzzy borders of species membership and grounded on the transgressive power of the imagination. The first text I will read from that perVSHFWLYH LV <DQQ 0DUWHOV Life of Pi.2 In this text, the human-animal
boundary is questioned and eventually deconstructed, and understanding the ways in which this is done constitutes an important step in the
task of developing EnvironMentality. The chain of association that
links animal beings with savagery will be rent and delinked, and I will
show the textual environment to be pivotal for the idea of a humanDQLPDOFRPPXQLW\%\DGGLQJVHOHFWHGSDVVDJHVIURP0DUWHOVODWHVW
novel, Beatrice and Virgil,3 I will provide further examples of how the
2
3
In the following referred to as LoP.

In the following referred to as BaV.
192
negotiations of such communities illuminate the potential but also the

dangers of creating literary companion speFLHV4
I will therefore approach the question of the human-animal boundary from the perspective of aesthetics and thus hope to circumvent
VRPHRIWKHVKRUWFRPLQJVWKDWUHDGLQJWKH animal entails. By appropriating notions of human-animal kinship, for instance, texts often
HODERUDWHRQLPDJLQDWLYHZD\VRIVHHLQJWKHDQLPDODVLWLV or they
employ animal characters as personae standing in for humans, thus
troping toZDUGVWKHRWKHU.DPERXUHOL, which may result in a
symbolism that allegorises the animal and makes it invisible as an
animal being. It seems that any attempt at making sense of the animal
in fiction always relies on ways, however subtle, of dismissing its
marginal status, that is, its elusive character as the wholly other in
Derridean terminology (Derrida 2008: 11 & passim).
A hermeneutic approach has to take into account the cultural markers imposed upon any attempt to narrate animals and animality. Thus
it illuminates how animal narratives oscillate between an interest in
animals and anthropocentric ways of finding an appropriate narrative
form. I will therefore look at animal narratives that negotiate the aniPDOVLQEHWZHHQQHVVLQOLWHUDU\WH[WV3KLOLS$UPVWURQJPDLQWDLQVWKDW
WKH JHQHULF QRWLRQ RI WKH DQLPDO KDV SURYLGHG PRGHUQLW\ ZLWK D
WHUP DJDLQVW ZKLFK WR GHILQH LWV PRVW FUXFLDO FDWHJRULHV KXPDQLW\
FXOWXUH UHDVRQ DQG VR RQ (Armstrong 2008: 1). Following this
assumption, I venture to detect traces of self-reflexive, imaginative
stagings of the animal in narratives that comment on and negotiate
aspects of this specific, generic notion.
Instead of describing a community of human and animal beings by
WDONLQJ DERXW WKH DQLPDO , H[DPLQH WKH GLYLGLQJ OLQH EHWZHHQ
humans and animals and literary ways of emplotting transitions, negoWLDWLRQVDQGWUDQVJUHVVLRQV+XJJDQDQG7LIILQSRLQWRXWWKDWthe very
definition of humanit\ LV WKH QRW-DQLPDO DQG WKDW WKXV KXPDQanimal hybrids cannot be allowed to exist (Huggan & Tiffin 2010:
163). What DERXW KXPDQLPDO H[SHULHQFHV DQG KXPDQ-animal communities? What could they add to the notion of humanity as soon as
4
7KLV WHUP LV +DUDZD\V DQG +DUDZD\ DUJXHV WKDW VHHLQJ DQLPDOVDV FRPSDQLRQ
species because of a constant, reciprocal genetic, emotive and even cultural exFKDQJHPD\VHUYHDVDSRLQWHUWRDQRQJRLQJEHFRPLQJ-ZLWK+DUDZD\
18). Literature is capable of emplotting this stance, as will be shown in the first
half of this chapter. However, such literary appropriations are not without dangers, as the second half of the chapter argues.
193
the negative connotations RIWKHDQLPDOare questioned? I will show

that the human-animal hybridity that informs the communities I am
about to explore creates a form of resistance against any exclusive
YLHZRIWKHDQLPDODQGWKDWLWVLPLODUO\IRUFHVXVWRUHWKLQNWKHQotion of humanity. *LRUJLR $JDPEHQ PDLQWDLQV WKDW WKH FDHVXUD Eetween the human and the animal passes first of all withLQ PDQ DQG
WKDW FRQVHTXHQWO\ LW LV WKH YHU\ TXHVWLRQ RI PDQ DQG RI KXPDnLVP WKDWPXVWEHSRVHGLQDQHZZD\,QDVLPLODUYHLQ
Erika Fudge argues that [w]hat is at stake ultimately is our own capability to think beyond ourselves (Fudge 2002: 22). The hermeneutic angle of this study allows for such rethinkings, which require an
acute awareness for the aesthetic potential of fiction. Texts that open
up ways of thinking beyond species borders can help us to re-assess
the human-animal divide as well as its scientific naturalisations.5
Neither Life of Pi nor Beatrice and Virgil will therefore be read
simply as documents commenting on the animal question from a literary perspective; in fact, I will read these texts as imaginative challenges to the categorisations the narratives are concerned with. Donna
Harawa\KDVVXJJHVWHGWKHFRQFHSWRIcompanion species to express
the inextricability of human and animal individualities. She links this
LGHDWRDQHWKLFVDQGSROLWLFVFRPPLWWHGWRWhe flourishing of significant otherness (2003: 3) connected to what she refers to as autremondialisation. 6 In what follows, I will explore the hermeneutical
potential of the concept of companion species by reading literary renderings of human-animal communities and human-animal chimeras.
Engaging with and questioning the ways communities and boundaries are constructed and deconstructed within the imagination benefits EnvironMentality in two ways. Firstly, the narrative emplotment
of imaginative belonging and a communal sense is a necessary component of (postcolonial) ecocriticism because it sheds light on the
various relations between humans and nonhumans and their literary
UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ:KLOHDQLPDOV>@FDQEHUHDGV\PEROLFDOO\RIWHQDV
5
Even from the scientific side, this divide can be effectively questioned, as Donna
Haraway demonstrates. However, she sharply and vehemently criticises Deleuze
and *XDWWDULV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI EHFRPLQJ VHH +DUDZD\ DQG 30).
+DUDZD\VXQGerstanding of autre-mondalisation follows Beatriz Preciado. AutreMondialisation is understood as an alternative to the economic forms of globalisation DQG LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK QXUWXULQJ D PRUH MXVW DQG SHDFHIXO RWKHU-globaOL]DWLRQ+DUDZD\3-4 n1).
194
metaphors for displaced and colonized peoples, DQLPDOV OLNH WKHLU

human counterparts, have suffered twofold as a result of the colonial
project of empire and one of its omnipresent consequences, environmental devastation (Wright 2010: 57). This illustrates the parallels
between human and animal lives, which are staged both as cultural
VLJQLILHUVWKHDQLPDODV DFXOWXUDO V\PERO WKHSRVWFRORQLDO VXEMHFW
as a spoken-for subaltern object) and as actual individuals. Together
with the problem of zoomorphism, these findings suggest that we need
WR ILQG ZD\V RI GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKH RWKHULQJ RI ERWK KXPDQV DQG DQiPDOVDQGFRPHWRWHUPVZLWKWKHFKDOOHQJHRIUHDGLQJUHDOLW\ZLWKRXW
QHJDWLQJDOWHULW\
Secondly, reading forms of human-animal communities suggests
WKDW WKH VHQVH RI FRPSDQLRQVKLS, which is needed for EnvironMentality depends on the forms of a literary community the question is how anthropomorphisms, intertextual references to other texts
and generic links engender companionship and a sense of community.
Imagining communities that way can then be seen as a form of resistance against essentialist notions of difference on the one hand and
idealising apSURDFKHVVXFKDVEHFRPLQJ-animal on the other. Instead
of totalising animality, I will show how fiction allows us to develop a
more balanced concept of humanimality by circumscribing it in a
chaotic web of intertextual relations. In these intertextual contact
zones, humans and animals meet, commune and merge as literary
companion species, and nonhuman animals literally inhabit the realm
of human culture together with their biped companions. This form of
contact and community directly relates to postcolonial criticism since,
by re-writing the canRQ LQWHUPV RI D FKLPHULFDOhumanimality, the
dividing lines of subalterity are deconstructed.
The cultural affiliations of the author and the QRYHOVPHWDILFWLRQDO
author-character further challenge WKH QRYHOV DSSDUHQW WKHPHV
notions of authenticity and cosmopolitanism on both extra- and intradiegetic levels (see Wright 2010: 66). But in connection with the
role of animals and their aesthetic staging, the texts call for a renegotiation of the meaning of national and biological communities. At
the same time, the literary devices that are used to evoke humananimal communities allow for a self-critical questioning of their own
presuppositions. By discussing the intertextual references in Yann
0DUWHOVLife of Pi and the questions the novel raises about the idea of
community, I will show how intertextuality allows for an empathetic
yet critical and self-reflexive engagement with the empathetic effects
195
of fiction. Since intertextual connections illuminate the idea of

KXPDQLPDO FRQQHFWHGQHVV, they also expose the fictionality of the
text and its anthropomorphisms. This is done by pointing to the cultural and literary contexts they draw upon. That EnvironMentality
benefits from this built-in potential for critical reflection will be discussed in detail in my reading of Beatrice and Virgil in the second
half of this chapter.
*****
Although anthropomorphisation is not understood in terms of the
ascription of human traits to God anymore, comparing humans and
animals in ways that suggest equality is regarded by many as a grave
FDWHJRU\ PLVWDNH $V /RUUDLQH 'DVWRQ FODLPV DQWKURSRPRUSKLVP
ZDVDWKHRORJLFDOVLQORQJEHIRUHLWEHFDPHDVFLHQWLILFRQHDQGLWV
dismissal as hubris or sophomoric sentiment still has an effect across
disciplinary boundaries (Daston 2005: 39). John Ruskin, writing in
1856, rejected anthropomorphism and accused writers and readers of
WKHpathetic falODF\5XVNLQ>@Chapters 12-13; 17). Contemporary philosophy and animal studies also dismiss what they see
as XQZDUUDQWHG DWWHPSWV WR FRORQLVH WKH wholly other as Jacques
Derrida describes the animal. If we cannot know the animal, giving
voice to it is bound to fail, or is, at the very least, heavily ideological.
$WEHVWVXFKDWWHPSWVPXVWEHUHJDUGHGDVDYLUWXRVREXWGRRPHGDFW
of complete empathy (Daston & Mitman 2005b: 7). One might therefore criticise that, GXH WR WKH DQLPDOV LGHRORJLFDO DQG V\PEROLF EXrGHQWKHDQLPDODVVXFKEHFRPHVXQ-representable: imaginative ways
RI VHHLQJ WKH DQLPDO DV LW LV RU WKH DSSURSULDWLRQ RI QRWLRQV of
human-animal kinship in literary texts will inevitably lead to all-tooeasy, symbolic readings.7 ,QWKHHQGWKHDQLPDOZLOOUHPDLQVLOHQW
7
Notably, when Huggan and Tiffin (2010: 135-7) describe the idea of othering with
regard to the zoocritical concerns of their analyses, they give four examples which
DOO H[FOXGH WKH LGHD RI WKH DQLPDO DV VXFK WKH\ GHVFULEH UKHWRULF DQG VRFLal
praxes of treating humans like animals; they name the human-animal competition
for decreasing resources; they discuss the special status of animals as a social
VKLEEROHWK RU DQLPDO-OLQNHG UDFLDOLVDWLRQ WKH GRJ-HDWLQJ &KLQHVH LV DQ
example of such a stereotyping based on alleged concerns for animals; and they
name the human-animal competition for empathic attention (for example, as
shown in the argument that we must not care too much for animals as long as
there are starving children in the world).
196
However, we do not have to forsake the idea of fictional humananimal communities and the imaginative potential of anthropomorphism. Instead of trying to describe such a community by talking
DERXWWKHDQLPDOWKRXJK,SURSRVHWRIRFXV instead on the human,
that is, the various cultural spheres of human literature. By looking at
the literary emplotment of animals as well as fictional ways of establishing human-animal communities, we can focus on the textual potential for staging instances of human-animal communities beyond
any essentialist or speciesist borders. Hence, I am interested in narrative ways that allow for moments RIKXPDQLPDOH[SHULHQFHLQDOLtHUDU\ HQYLURQPHQW RI KXPDQ DQG QRQKXPDQ FKDUDFWHUV 7KHVH KuPDQLPDOK\EULGVLQnarratives are QRWDOORZHG to existDV+XJJDQ
and Tiffin claim (2010: 163), because they destabilise the boundary
between animal and human beings, and they shift the focus of attention to the communal aspects rather than the ontological differences
between humans and animals. The animal thus becomes part of the
human community by virtue of its entering (and maybe contesting)
canonical narrative traditions; and as human-animal communities enter the cultural sphere of literature, they help us to think beyond
strictly anthropocentric notions.
In <DQQ0DUWHOV Life of Pi, the dichotomy of humans and animals
is destabilised by the idea of a joint shipwreck of humans and animals.
3LVMRLQLQJDQDQLPDOFRPPXQLW\LVWKXVDFDVHLQSRLQWIRUWKHLGHD
that a narrative negotiation of anthropomorphism adds to the hermeneutic process towards EnvironMentality. The experience of a temporary relief from the violent hierarchy of the human-animal divide and
WKHVWDJLQJRIDKXPDQLPDOLGHQWLW\DQGFRPPXQLW\LVDIXQGDPHQWDO
ethical challenge. Moreover, I will argue, it engenders one of the most
effective strategems of postcolonial literature: the turning-back of the
LPSHULDl gaze [...] upon the colonizer (Childs et al. 2006: 227-36;
see also Pratt 1992). I will show how this is done by means of textual
form, and the gaps and tensions through which interpretation negotiates the imaginative potential of the narratives.
,QWHUHVWLQJO\ 5XVNLQV QRWLRQ RI WKH SDWKHWLF IDOODF\ FDQ DOVR EH
read as a comment on the question of such gaps. Ruskin holds that the
silence of the natural world initiated all kinds of reactions, from religious awe to the Romantic idea of the sublime:
[T]he modern writer, by his admission of the tinge of fallacy, has given an idea of
something in the action of the wave [which Keats describes in his Endymion]
197
which Homer could not [...]. [T]here appears to be a degree of sympathy and feeling in the one writer, which there is not in the other; and as it has been received
for the first principle that writers are great in proportion to the intensity of their
feelings, and Homer seems to have no feelings about the sea but that it is black
and deep, surely in this respect also the modern writer is the greater? Stay a moment. Homer had some feeling about the sea; a faith in the animation of it much
stronger than .HDWV%XWDOOWKLVVHQVHRIVRPHWKLQJOLYLQJLQLWKHVHSDUDWHs in
his mind into a great abstract image of a Sea Power. He never says the waves
rage, or the waves are idle. But he says there is something in, and greater than, the
waves, which rages, and is idle, and that he calls a god. (Ruskin 2005: 179; emphasis orig.)
Ruskin here dismisses the way the Romantics related literary value to
a surplus of emotive response, and he maintains the importance of
silence, instead: Homer has to refer to a god, who represents utter
unspeakability, in order to express his conviction that the waves do
QRWUDJHDQGDUHQRWLGOH,GHVFULEHGFRPSDUDEOHSKHQRPHQDLQP\
discussion of The Hungry Tide when I claimed that both the tiger motif and the role of the natural world evolve around the idea of unspeakability. With this idea in mind, and in refuting the attempt at
VLPSO\ WKLQNLQJ ZLWK RU EHFRPLQJ WKH UHDO DQLPDO , understand
Life of Pi as a fictional account of silence, the animal gaze and the
unspeakability of both, and the power of fiction to narrate them nonetheless.
Life of Pi tells the story of a young Indian boy, Piscine Molitor
Patel, the son of a zoo-keeper. Pi, as he is called, and his family are
about to leave India for political reasons, but their migration to Canada ends in disaster when their ship sinks, leaving Pi in the desolate
and grotesque situation of being stranded on a lifeboat with a fullgrown Bengal tiger for 227 days. In the beginning, the two are accompanied by a wounded zebra, a hyena and an orang-utan, who all die
one after the other. The sinking of the ship throws Pi into a surreal
situation that blurs the boundaries between truth and belief, and fact
and fiction. In this context, numerous critics have commented on the
IDFW WKDW 3L DQG WKHWLJHUV VLWXDWLRQ OLWHUDOO\ VWDJHV WKH LGHD RI EHLQJ
LQ WKHVDPHERDW7KHQRYHOSUHVHQWVD'DUZLQLVWLFVWUXJJOHIRUVXrvival (the tiger subsequently kills the other, weaker animals) and
comments on ethology and animal behaviour studies (Pi has to learn
how to train the tiger in order to prevent it from killing him), but it
also expounds an interesting human-animal community. Most notably,
this community unsettles the division between animals and humans
because, LQ QHJRWLDWLQJ WKH DFWXDO DQG PHWDSKRULFDO FRPSOH[LWLHV RI
198
the species boundary, Pi performs a common transfer across it

(Huggan & Tiffin 2010: 172). As will be shown, this fictional move is
important since it not only broadens the concept of subalterity to include animals, it also circumvents the question of a subaltern voice in
general and with regard to animals in particular and instead suggests
the significance of unspeakability.
The literary, human-animal community in Life of Pi relies heavily
on the reader responses it is capable of inspiring. Hence, the ways
such reader responses are evoked deserve a closer look. Shortly after
the ship sinks and he saves his own life by getting into the lifeboat, Pi
is overwhelmed by the impressions of the turbulent sea and the danger
he is in:
Everything was screaming: the sea, the wind, my heart. From the lifeboat I saw
VRPHWKLQJLQWKHZDWHU,FULHG5LFKDUG3DUNHULVWKDW\RX",WVVRKDUGWRVHH
2KWKDWWKLVUDLQZRXOGVWRS5LFKDUG3DUNHU"5LFKDUG3DUNHU"<HVLWLV\RX>@
He had seen me. He looked panic-stricken. He started swimming my way. The
water about him was shifting wildly. He looked small and helpless. [...] His nose
and mouth kept dipping underwater. Only his eyes were steadily on me. (LoP
127-8)
At this point, the readers are completely unaware that the Richard
Parker Pi is calling out to is in fact the tiger who will later pose a lethal threat to him; and instead of disclosing this information to the
reader, Pi, the second-order autodiegetic narrator, uses vocabulary that
VXJJHVWV D KXPDQ EHLQJ QRVH DQGPRXWKLQVWHDGRIVQRXW) and,
by virtue of short and emphatic sentences, invokes a passionate sense
of empathy with a fellow creature struggling for survival.8
Only after he has saved Richard Parker does Pi realise that he has
endangered himself by this action and he realises it together with the
UHDGHU7UXO\,ZDVWREHWKHQH[WJRDW,KDGDZHWWUHPEOLQJKDOIdrowned, heaving and coughing three-year-old Bengal tiger in my
lifeboat (130). This insight, however, comes too late in several ways:
not only was Richard Parker RQ ERDUGDOUHDG\ 3LV LQLWLDO HPRWLRQDO
response had also created a sense of community with the anthropomorphised animal that can no longer be dismissed. In that context,
6WHZDUW &ROH FODLPV WKDW E\ WKH WLPH >5LFKDUG 3DUNHUV@ ELRORJLFDO
8
,WPXVWEHQRWHGKRZHYHUWKDWE\UHIHUULQJWRWKHWLJHUDV5LFKDUG3DUNHUWKH
novel does not suggest a real human being but a literary representation, namely
WKHFKDUDFWHUIURP3RHVNarrative of Arthur Gordon Pym. I will comment on this
below.
199
status is clarified, he has already been sufficiently humanized for the

reader to have placed him on a continuum wiWK WKH QRYHOV KXPDQ
characters (Cole 2004: 29). Dina Georgis situates this phenomenon in
the context of postcolonial criticism when she adds that the text unGHUFXWV WKH GLOHPPD WKDW >W@KH VXEDOWHUQ LV H[FOXGHG IURP FXOWXUDO
production and therefRUH KDV QR LPDJLQHG FRPPXQLW\ (Georgis
2006: 173). Life of Pi presents such an imagined community in terms
of a literary community. This literary community provides a continuum indeedDQGLWUHQGHUVKXPDQLPDOVXEDOWHUQVSDUWRIthe cultural production by intertextually placing them into literary tradition.
Despite its reliance on anthropomorphisation, such a community remains clearly fictional as the noveOVVWDWXVDVDQLPDJLQDWLYHZRUNLV
stressed by numerous intertextual references.9
In terms of genre, the narrative of Life of Pi is situated in the context of shipwreck narratives, among them most notably Robinson
Crusoe. That the novel thus successfully incorporates and reassesses
particular writing traditions has been noted by June Dwyer, who
argues that while at WKHWLPHRIWKH1HZ&ULWLFLVPVKLSZUHFNZDVD
PHWDSKRUUHIOHFWLQJWKHOLIH-MRXUQH\RIKXPDQEHLQJVWKLVYLHZVWLOO
has validity, but [...] it is almost impossible to consider shipwrecks
without also taking into consideration ecological concerns (2005: 9;
see also Blumenberg 1979). Hailing Life of Pi as the novel that addresses such an ecologically concerned shift in writing but also considering shipwreck narratives in general, she therefore claims that in
WKHQRYHOWKHGRPLQDWLRQSDUDGLJPLVUHSODFHGZLWKDPRUHHFRORJLcally acceptable one of respect (10). However, this view is countered
by PhiliS $UPVWURQJV FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW examined more closely, the
environmentalist veneer of Life of Pi proves rather thin (2008: 177).
<HWLQDQRYHOWKDWVRYHKHPHQWO\GLVPLVVHVGU\DQG\HDVWOHVVIDFWuality (LoP 84; 406), the focus on its textual and literary potential
might be more rewarding than tracing the realist merits of the narrative. From the perspective of aesthetic, intertextual discourse, the parallels to Robinson Crusoe are particularly remarkable in a scene in
which Pi and Richard Parker reach a deserted island. This island
9
Apart from the references discussed on the following pages, the most obvious but
OLNHZLVH PRVW RYHUORRNHG LQWHUWH[WXDO UHIHUHQFH LV WR 0RDF\U 6FOLDUV Max es os
Felinos 0DUWHODFNQRZOHGJHV6FOLDULQWKH$XWKRUV1RWHZKLFKIUDPHV
the story of Pi, DVWKHVSDUNRIOLIHDQGWKXV points to the intertextual embeddedness of the novel as such (LoP xvi).
200
appears as a terra nullius to Pi and he functions as colonial discoverer

in the form of a juvenile Robinson Crusoe:
0\*RG0\*RG,ZKLPSHUHG,IHOORYHUERDUG7KHFRPELQHGVKRFNRIVROLG
land and cool water gave me the strength to pull myself forward onto the island. I
babbled incoherent thanks to God and collapsed. (LoP 346)
However, although it initially resembles a Robinsonade, Pi and

5LFKDUG 3DUNHUV VWD\ RQ WKH LVODQG VRRQ WXUQV LQWR DQ DFFRXQW RI
PDQVIDOOIURPJUDFHLQ3DUDGLVH3LWDVWHVthe fruit of one of the trees
that cover the island and a
pleasant breeze ran through the trees. I was keenly curious. I examined the fruit.
Ah, how I wish that moment had never been! But for it I might have lived for
years why, for the rest of my life on that island. [...] What reason could I have
to leave the island? Were my physical needs not met here? Was there not more
fresh water than I could drink in all my lifetime? More algae than I could eat?
(LoP 375-6)
Thus invoking narratives of colonialism and conquest, then incorporating pastoral imagery and the literary archetype of loss and expulsion, Genesis, Life of Pi establishes another intertextual reference that
FKDQJHV WKH IRFXV IURP PDQV RULJLQDO VLQ WR WKH LGHD RI D WKUHDW
shared by (subaltern) human and animal. The fruit turns out to be a
mass of leaves that he has to unwrap, and at the core of the fruit, Pi
finds a human tooth. At the core of the forbidden fruit are the remains
of a human being who had been devoured by the gigantic island itself
which turns out to be a living carnivorous organism made of algae.
7KH LVODQG LV WKHUHIRUH QRW VR PXFK DQ DOOHJRU\ RIELRGLYHUsity, as
Armstrong (2008: 165) claims, but a place that Pi realises to be thoroughly hostile to humans and animals alike. He thereupon tries to
escape from the island together with Richard Parker. The island
turns out to be an anti-(GHQLF SODFH ZKHUH WKH VHUSHQW LV QRWKLQJ
other than the voracity of human consumption itself (Huggan & Tiffin 2010: 174). Yet this voracity endangers both Pi and Richard Parker
ultimately, they embark on their lifeboat together and return to their
human-animal companionship. The numerous intertextual allusions do
not suggest a single interpretive direction, however; their great number creates the sense of a cultural context that humans and animals
experience side by side.
The most remarkable intertextual reference in the novel is the name
5LFKDUG 3DUNHU 5LFKDUG 3DUNHU LV D FKDUDFWHU IURP (GJDU $OODQ
201
3RHVNarrative of Arthur Gordon Pym and in this story, Parker is a

KXPDQEHLQJ3RHVQRYHOLVDVKLSZUHFNQDUUDWLYHDVZHOODQGLQWKLV
text, Parker is the one who, after a long and exhausting journey without food and drink, suggests eating one of the mariners. Ironically, it
is his idea to draw straws and, ultimately, it is his lot to be eaten. The
text thus features cannibalism in ways that can be reassessed in the
SRVWFRORQLDO FRQWH[W DV +XJJDQ DQG 7LIILQ QRWH ,I FRORQLDOLVP FDQ
EH VDLG WR KDYH LWV RZQ RULJLQ P\WK WKH\ DUJXH QRQH LV PRUH
SRZHUIXO WKDQ WKH VXSSUHVVLRQ RI WKH WKUHDWHQLQJ RWKHU the disavowed animal, the cannibal gnawing at the human heart (2010:
168). By complicating the cultural code of cannibalism through the
use of intertextuality ascribing the connotation to a carnivorous animal, that is Life of Pi comments on the fact that, as a self-authorising
P\WK WKH UHDO VLJQLILFDQFH RI FDQQLEDOLVP >@ LV discursive (170;
emphasis orig.).10
The focus on the discursive aspects of naturalisation and othering
DUHHFKRHGLQWKHPDLQFKDUDFWHU3L:KLOHKLVQDPHUHIOHFWV,QGLDV
colonial heritage his full name derives from the French Piscine
VZLPPLQJ SRRO Molitor VR WKDW WKH QDPH LV PHWRQymically
PDUNHGE\FRORQLDOLVP (Georgis 2006: 167) it later becomes shortened WR 3L 7KLV LQ WXUQ RSHQV D VSDFH IRU DVVRFLDWLRQ WKDW KLV
schoolmates are happy to fill WKH\ FDOO KLP /HPRQ 3LH IRU Lnstance, which Pi contritely prefers to his formHU PRQLNHU Pissing
3DWHO (LoP 26; 32; emphasis orig.). The most important association
his name evokes, however, is introduced by Pi himself, and it leaves
HYHQ PRUH VSDFH IRU VLJQLILFDWLRQ 0\ QDPH LV 3LVFLQH 0ROLWRU
3DWHOKHZULWHVRQWKHEODFNERDUGRQHGD\
known to all as I double underlined the first two letters of my given name Pi
3DWHO)RUJRRGPHDVXUH,DGGHG DQG,GUHZDODUJHFLUFOHZKLFK,WKHQ
sliced in two with a diameter, to evoke that basic lesson of geometry. (30)
Although it is Pi himself who establishes this connection between

name and mathematical term, apparently to prevent other associations
IURPEHLQJFHPHQWHGKHWDNHVUHIXJHLQWKDWHOXVLYHLUUDWLRQDOQXmEHU (32) that for him discloses what Roland Barthes has called the
VKXGder of meaning (Barthes 1989: 79).
10
Note also that before Pi and Richard Parker reach the island, they encounter a
whale and an albatross, thus linking their oceanic journey even more tightly to
literary sea journeys.
202
A first glimpse of the fluid and continuous possibilities of ascribing

meaning to this name can be seen in the changing pronunciation of
3L DV WKH SXQV 3LVVLQJ DQG 3L DV LQ UHTXLUH GLIIHUHQW YRZHO
VRXQGV 0RUHRYHU 3LV V\PEROLF QDPH JDLQV IXUWKHU significance in
connection with the animal character Richard Parker, who has a
SURSHUILUVWDQGODVWQDPH, DQGD:HVWHUQQDPHDWWKDW:KLOH3L
is linked to mathematics, it is Richard Parker, the mute animal, whose
name alludes to literature. Discussing the denotative tension between
Pi and Richard Parker, Huggan and Tiffin conclude that, LQDQLQYHrsion of readerly expectation, it is Piscine Patel (Pi), who is denoted by
a symbol something standing for something else while the tiger
has first and family names (2010: 171). <HW 5LFKDUG 3DUNHUV QDPH
stands for something else, too namely, for the man who found him.
Due to a bureaucratic error, the tiger, who was supposed to be called
7KLUVWwas given a human name. Thus, the associations and the questioning of names and naming that the text evokes blur the dividing line
between man and animal in ways similar to those of the intertextual
allusions described abRYH7KLVHQJHQGHUVDVHQVHRIGLVDQLPDOL]LQJ
WUHDWPHQW DV'HUULGDFDOOVLWZKDW others would call the denaturing
of animality, the production of figures of animality that are so new
that they appear monstrous enough to call for a change of name
(2008: 80). We are thus getting closer to the humanimal.
My observations situate the narratives, both the novel as such and
3LV DFFRXQW RI WKH VWRU\ LQ VLJQLILFDQW OLWHUDU\ DQG LQWHUWH[WXDO FRntexts. If this is overlooked, crucial layers of meaning might be missed
completely. Taking it as a realist description of human-animal relations, for instance, can only lead to misreading the text altogether.
Instead, I suggest that reading it with a focus on aesthetics rather than
realism makes more sense. Armstrong suggests that
3LVFRQYLFWLRQWKDWKHVWDQGVDEHWWHUFKDQFHRIVXUYLYDOLIKHFDQNeep the tiger
alive surely a counter-intuitive one is accepted by the reader because it encapsulates a dominant environmentalist structure of feeling, according to which the
crucial factor in safeguarding the continuation of life in general is the preservation
of inter-relationships between species. (2008: 165)
BXWWKLVLVRQO\SDUWRIWKHWUXWK7KLVDVVXPSWLRQLJQRUHV3LVQXPHrous comments on apartness and species differences, but more importantly, it misunderstands the novel as a pamphlet commenting on
environmentalist thought instead of seeing it first and foremost as
DILFWLRQDOGLVFRXUVHLQLWVRZQULJKW$FFRUGLQJO\$UPVWURQJVFRn-
203
clusion seems rather odd: as stated above, he sneers WKDW the environmentalist veneer of Life of Pi proves UDWKHUWKLQArmstrong 2008:
177). +HWKHQVFUXWLQLVHV3LVH[SODQDWLRQV about zoos, animal keeping
and animal training and concludes that
DOWKRXJK LW SRVHV DV WKH VLPSOH VWRU\ RI D VLPSOH ,QGLDQ ER\ 0DUWHOV QRYHO Uefuses the particularities of location and floats free of historical, geopolitical context, and in so doing offers a rhapsody to the power of the (touristic, allconsuming, privileged, globalized, Western) human spirit. (179)
Armstrong mixes his assessment of Martel as the author with a misUHDGLQJRI3LDVDPRUDOYRLFH0DUWHOValleged SHUFHSWLRQRIJOREDO
PRELOLW\ DV IXQGDPHQWDO WR KXPDQ QDWXUH OHDGV Armstrong to conFOXGHWKDW3LVVHQVLELOLW\LVPRUHWKDQDQ\WKLQJHOVHWKDWRIWKHWRXrist, for example (179). What is more, he claims that the whole novel
expresses this sensibility. By conflating author, character and text like
this, Armstrong misses the point that Pi, as a fictional character, cannot be taken to be reliable in any realist (or environmentalist) sense. Pi
is not only metonymically marked by colonial culture, he is first and
foremost a child who has been instructed by his father, a zoo-keeper,
about animal behaviour. His voyage on the lifeboat can also be read as
a coming-of-age narrative in the course of which he grows up and, at
the same time, realises the reciprocal dependence of human and animal beings. In the end, the question of unreliability constitutes a gap
to be filled by the reader.
This is highlighted at the end of the novel when, in a surprising
twist of readerly expectation and by means of metafictional comment,
the fictional discourse of the novel becomes the central theme. This
development is supported by the very construction of the narrative
itself, which can be divided into three main sections: the first section
WHOOV3LVOLIHEHIRUHWKHYR\DJHDQGKLVVWUXJJOHZLWKUHOLJLRXVEHOLHI11
the second section deals with his being on the lifeboat; and the remarkably short third section, after Pi has been saved, when the story is
retold to two Japanese investigators who interrogate Pi for insurance
UHDVRQV7KH\GRQRWEHOLHYH3LVQDUUDWLYH7KLVOHDGV3LWRILUVWGefend it WLJHUVH[LVWOLIHERDWVH[LVWRFHDQVH[LVW%HFDXVHWKHWKUHH
have never come together in your narrow experience, you refuse
to believe WKDW WKH\ PLJKW (LoP 299) then to rephrase the story
11
Note the inclusion of religious discourse, which historically links to the trope of
anthropomorphism, as argued above.
204
completely. Pi now recounts in a few sentences how the lifeboat came

to be RFFXSLHG E\ KLV PRWKHU WKH VKLSV FKHI DQG DQ LQMXUHG VDLORU
$IWHUDUJXPHQWVDQGILJKWVLWLVWKHFKHIZKRNLOOV3LVPRWher and the
sailor, while Pi, in turn, kills the chef. After this account of the narrative, the Japanese investigators have to admit that they liked the story
with the animals better. Their reaction underscores how the novel is
FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH DELOLW\ to recognize the better story [...] for a
broader understanding of truth as encompassing more than mere
facts, as Laura Wright concludes (2010: 65). Moreover, it problematises our own readerly expectations as they are shaped and reshaped
by the narrative: since within the fictional world the two versions conWUDGLFW HDFK RWKHU ZH WRR KDYH WR GHFLGH ZKLFK RQH WR EHOLHYH 2I
FRXUVHZHXQGHUVWDQGWKHVHFRQGYHUVLRQWREHPRUHUHDOLVWLF12 And
although it is iQGHHGDQLPPRELOHVWRU\ as Pi says, we find it more
reliable than the first narrative, which seems more like a fable motivated by psychological displacement.
The UHOXFWDQFHWR DFFHSW 3LVILUVW VWRU\ GHPRQVWUDWHV a proximity
to the interrogators, who, just as the reader might have done, fail to
graVSWKHEHWWHUVWRU\XQGHUVWRRGDVVXEDOWHUQKXPDQLPDOQDUUDWLYH
The experience of a human-animal community (or humanimal hybridLW\ WKXV SRVHV D UHVLVWDQW IRUFH DJDLQVW WKH GHVLUH IRU UHDOLVP DQG
IDFWV and draws attention to the power of the literary imagination.
The imaginary community forces the reader to choose: either we agree
WR SDUWDNH LQ WKLV KXPDQLPDO H[SHULHQFH ZLWKLQ 3LV DQG RXU RZQ
minds, or we acknowledge our inability to understand the truth of
fiction which would make us complicit with the unsympathetic interrogators and turn the colonising gaze back onto ourselves.
5HIUDPLQJ WKH VWRU\ LQ UHDOLVW WHUPV SURGXFHV DQRWKHU JDS WKH
vanishing of Richard Parker. To believe the second story also means
to re-assess the animal characters as symbolic stand-ins for the human
ones, because the detestable murders and cannibalistic deeds that
RULJLQDOO\>PDUN@WKHRXWHUOLPLWVRIWKHKXPDQ>DUH@PHWDSKRULFDOO\
re-DSSOLHGWRKXPDQVEXWRQO\DIWHU>WKHLU@UHDOEDVLs has been exiled
to the animal (Huggan & Tiffin 2010: 173). It is thus the human
characters who show bestial behaviour while the animal characters
have been made up and utilised discursively in the fictional context of
12
:HLQWKLVFRQWH[WKDV RIFRXUVHUDWKHUWREHXQGHUVWRRGDVDQ,7KDWLVWRVD\
I approach the text from my own hermeneutical situation and, as argued in
CKDSWHUDVVXPHWKDWWKLVLVZKDWWKHLPSOLHGUHDGHUGRHV
205
3LV ILUVW VWRU\ 5LFKDUG 3DUNHU KRZHYHU Uesists this inverse anthropomorphisation and quietly vanishes from the narrative he has no
human counterpart. Without Richard Parker, the text tells us, Pi would
not have been able to survive his 227 days on the lifeboat the gap
therefore leaves us in want of an answer as to how to read this animal.
Was it a kind of zoomorphic, spiritual guidance, an element of the
WUXHDFFRXQWRIWKHVWRU\WKDWFDQQRWEHWUDQVODWHGLQWRdry, yeastless
factuDOLW\" OU FDQ ZH XQGHUVWDQG LW DV 3LV UHDOLVDWLRQ RI KLV Rwn
animal self that had been evoked in the narrative journey on the lifeboat? However understood, by this last narrative twist, the animal
vanishes from sight, unspeakable again in the context of the familiar
realm of reliability. But it is still a vivid memory, not least of all because the part of the narrative that features animals is granted much
PRUHVSDFHLQWKHQRYHO3LVODVWZRUGVIRUKLPZKHQ5LFKDUG3DUNHU
rushes off into the jungle, are:
I wish you all the best with [your freedom]. Watch out for Man. He is not your
friend. But I hope that you will remember me as a friend. I will never forget you,
that is certain. You will always be with me, in my heart. (LoP 384)
This deeply emotional connection between Pi and Richard Parker, this

emplotment of a human-animal community by means of the imagination, thus constantly reflects on and refers to the questions of fiction
and truth. Moreover, the text demonstrates how animals can be used
and abused in the process of story-telling. If any case is made, then, it
is the case for imagination and for the power of narrative to establish a
literary human-animal community or a sense of humanimal identity
whose effects outlast the event that invokes them.
Laura Wright summarises her reading of The Life of Pi by stating
that
Pi represents, at least in theory, one side of various binary pairs that shape the focus of the novel: he is Indian as opposed to Canadian, vegetarian as opposed to
carnivorous, Hindu (by history) as opposed to Christian, religious as opposed to
secular. Furthermore, his story is oral as opposed to written. (Wright 2010: 70)
All of these binaries, however, are deconstructed by means of the narrative devices I outlined above in particular, 3LV XQUHOLDELOLW\ DQG
the numerous intertextual allusions. In the end, Pi is cosmopolitan
rather than nationally bound that is, he has overcome the imagined
community of a nation state for the sake of an imaginary community
206
of living creatures; during the narrative, he eats meat and even rejects
the distinction between (animal) carnivory and (human/bestial) cannibalism; he develops from a pantheistic eclecticism towards a global
spirituality that includes animals (and his scientific interest is surely
secular); and, finally, his oral narrative is not oral at all but narratively
staged as being an oral account within a novel. Through the various
binary constructions that it disrupts, Life of Pi allows us to view a
fictional space between anthropocentric fable and ecocentric animal
story. This space becomes a place for the humanimal. With regard to
EnvironMentality, the role of human-animal relationships in postcolonial narratives and the importance (and inescapability) of literary emplotment further support the claim for a cautious hermeneutics and
the focus on the event of fiction.
:KLOH WKH DFWXDO DQLPDOV VLOHQFH LV DFNQRZOHGJHG WKH VLOHQFH LW
leaves us with is narratively filled with the fictionalisation of literary
anthropomorphism; the EHOLHILQ*RG promised by the narrator at the
beginning RI KLV VWRU\ WKXV EHFRPHV 3LV belief in form WKDW ZH
must JLYH WKLQJV D PHDQLQJIXO VKDSH (LoP 383). This allows us to
RIIHUWKHDQLPDODSODFHLQWKHWUDQVODWHGZRUOG(Rilke), which I have
referred to as the world-as-text. It is important to note that positioning
the animal there does not mean understanding it at all. Instead, it
means a negotiation of the value of anthropomorphism as opposed to
the pathetic fallacy (without, of course, bringing it to closure). In place
of FRPSODLQWV DERXW WKH DQLPDO WKDW LQ ILFWLRQ LV OLWWOH PRUH WKDQ D
human-VFXOSWHGREMHFWLQZKLFKWKHDQLPDOVJODVVH\HPHUHO\UHflects
our own projections, we discover the imaginative space opened up by
WKHILFWLRQDOPRGHDVDIXUU\VXEMXQFWLYHFDVH DOLWHUDU\ZKDWLI
that deliberately blurs the species boundary (Daston & Mitman 2005b:
5; 9). At the same time, however, we remain aware of the fictional
character of our ways of thinking beyond the human.
In stressing the aesthetic and imaginative potential of literature, I
UHIUDLQ IURP +XJJDQ 7LIILQV DQG IURP $UPVWURQJV REMHFWLYH WR
counter representational othering by means of sociocultural or ecomaterialist analyses. Instead, I describe a communal sense between
humans and animals and an experience of humanimality that fiction
alone is able to create. If we take fiction as a place to test and imagine
the value of human-animal communities as a form of resistance
against the essentialist discourses of colonialism and speciesism, we
see that it is this faith in the imagination that Life of Pi fruitfully negoWLDWHV &ROHV GHVFULSWLRQ RI 0DUWHOV QRYHO DV DQ XQMXVW HTXDWLRQ RI
207
UHOLJLRXVEHOLHIDQGWKHEHOLHILQILFWLRQDODQLPDOQDUUDWLYHVLVWKHUeIRUH PLVOHDGLQJ 7KH EHOLHI LQ *RG WKDW 3L SURPLVes to elicit is in
fact the belief in the evocative potential of anthropomorphism. Interpreting the fictionality of anthropomorphic narratives provides us with
WKHQHFHVVDU\GLVWDQFHWRWKHLGHDRIJUDVSLQJWKHDQLPDO0RUHRYHU
it offers us a rewarding surplus of semantic echoes, which all claim
the animal as a vivid part of our cultural environment.
*****
In reading the negotiations and deconstructions of human-animal borders in Life of Pi, ,KDYHVKRZQWKDWDKXPDQLPDOVHQVHRIFRPPunity relies on an appreciation of difference and unspeakability. Instead
of looking for traces of the real animal in fiction, I have deliberately
sought humanimal hybridity, that is, points of convergence where
literary animals join the field of cultural production via intertextual
DQGDQWKURSRPRUSKLFQDUUDWLYHV,WZDVWKXVQRWDXWKHQWLFLW\RUUHDO
animals but the truth of fiction that I was looking for. In what follows,
I will elaborate on this idea. I will draw critical attention to the potential of literature to create an imaginary humanimal community and
discuss moments of problematic, literary appropriation of the motif of
animality. I will read Beatrice and Virgil 0DUWHOV IROORZ-up
novel in this context and show how the text intertextually and metafictionally engages with this danger. In the end, my reading will allow
for a self-critical deconstruction of WKHWH[WV humanimal notion without abandoning the hermeneutic orientation of EnvironMentality.
Beatrice and Virgil, I will argue, suggests a critical distance to the
motifs it employs the literary humanimal hybrid and thus ties in
with the critique of becoming I formulated in the last chapter. The text
achieves that this distance is felt as forcefully as possible by presenting dead animals and a taxidermist, among other things, and thus engaging with the provocation of the animal form. In The Animal That
Therefore I Am, Derrida talks about the conFHSWRIlimitrophy that
LVWKHTXHVWLRQQRWRQO\RIDQLPDORWKHUQHVVEXWRIZKDWVSURXWVRU
grows at the limits, around the limit, by maintaining the limit (2008:
29). This leads him to the animal figure. My reading will engage with
animal figures too, and it will show how the animal form provokes us
to think about ourselves and about otherness. Thus, it will present a
literary negotiation of what Derrida describes; seeking the animal
figure around the limit, and by maintaining the limit, of animality.
208
When we think about them, Derrida says, these animal figures PXOWiply, lunging more and more wildly in my face in proportion as my
texts seem to become autobiographical (2008: 35). Beatrice and
Virgil will help us in making sense of this.
My use of the concept of animal figures relies on ideas formulated
in different ways by Donna Haraway as well as by Derrida. My focus,
however, is not on the philosophical engagement with animals but on
literary emplotments. That is to say, I will reconfigure the concepts in
order to show how literary texts are able to effectively come to terms
with what Haraway means when she talks about humans and animals
DVchimerical visions of figuration DQGPDWHULDO-semiotic nodes or
NQRWV LQ ZKLFK GLYHUVH ERGLHV DQG PHDQLQJV FRVKDSH RQH DQRWKHU
(Haraway 2008: 4). I want to show that literature can help us understand these difficult ideas by turning abstraction into experience. With
a postcolonial stance in mind, I moreover believe that it can also address what DerULGDKDVFDOOHGWKHSUREOHPRIanthropo-theomorphic
UHDSSURSULDWLRQ &DQWKHDQLPDOVSHDN"'HUULGDVHHPV to ask, and
in ways not unlike Spivak, who asked whether the Subaltern can speak
(Spivak 1988), Derrida goes on to explicate:
Things would be too simple altogether, the anthropo-theomorphic reappropriation
would already have begun, there would even be the risk that domestication has already come into effect, if I were to give in to my own melancholy. (2008: 18)
It is highly problematic when animal advocacy literature tries to give

animals a voice, and Derrida rightly observes that it is
not [...] a PDWWHURIJLYLQJVSHHFKEDFN>@EXWSHUKDSVRIDFFHGLQJWRDWKLQking, however fabulous and chimerical it might be, that thinks the absence of the
name and of the word [...] as something other than a privation. (48)
IQ OLQNLQJ DQWKURSR-theomorphic rHDSSURSULDWLRQ DQG RQHV RZQ

PHODQFKRO\, Derrida points to the instrumentalising dangers of what
he calls the domesticating effect of giving back a voice. My reading
will try to illustrate this idea as well.
How, then, can we think of animals as companion species and
think about them and ourselves by thinking about figures? In what
follows, I argue that it is the imaginative and, in fact, polysemous
nature of fiction that allows for an actual negotiation of the animal
other, and it is its fictional representation that is needed if we want to
think beyond ourselves as Fudge puts it. Again, it is necessary that
209
we do not IRFXV RQ WKH DQLPDO RU WKH Rther in fiction but on the
chimerical constructions with which fiction challenges us encounters
with othered and commodified individuals but also encounters with an
animality that all living creatures RULQ+DUDZD\VZRUGVFULWWHUV
share.
$ERYH ,KDYHGLVFXVVHGKRZ<DQQ0DUWHOV Life of Pi negotiates
these issues, and the means by which our human communal ways with
animals are narrated by emphasising the fictionality of the textual
community. Since the novel works on two levels of fictionality, one in
which the animals are real and one in which they are symbolic standins, it forces the reader to engage with the questions I outlined above:
Do we anthropomorphise animals when we deal with them? Do we
zoomorphise humans who behave bestially? Which story do we believe and which is the better story? In having us ask these questions,
Life of Pi problematises the very distinction it seems to be concerned
with and cleverly deconstructs the tenet of separateness. By staging
the narrative as a fable that deliberately uses intertextual devices in
order to make us aware of its fictionality, Life of Pi combines the emotional aspects of human-animal communities with an acute awareness
RI WKH SUREOHPV RI DQ DOOHJHG WKLQNLQJ ZLWK DQLPDOV , KDYH VWDWHG
that it is very suggestive that the fictional coherence falls apart at the
end of the novel and that by making us choose which story to believe,
Life of Pi turns the colonising gaze back onto ourselves. By blurring
human and animal boundaries, and by complicating the distinction of
XVDQG WKHP LW EHFRPHV GLIILFXOW WR say who the coloniser is and
who the colonised; what makes the difference, the text suggests, is the
better story DQGRQHVRSHQQHVVWREHOLHYHLQLW. Paradoxically, the
belief in the better story is different from the belief in a genuine,
authentic account of the animal other because the text is overtly
marked as fictional by intertextual hints and references.
Beatrice and Virgil is a highly intertextual novel, too, and it directly engages with (and elaborates on) the issues raised in Life of Pi.
The whole novel, but especially the representation of animals, relies
KHDYLO\ RQ LQWHUWH[WXDO UHIHUHQFHV DQG DV WKH SORW DQG WKH QRYHOV
characters are built on tropes and motifs from other narratives, other
genres and other contexts from Renaissance humanism to the Holocaust the palimpsestic nature of the narrative engenders a vision of
DQLPDOLW\WKDWFDQEHXQGHUVWRRGDVFKLPHULFDODQGILJXUDWHG%\WKe
same token, the concepts of Derrida and Haraway can be experienced
as they are staged and emplotted in narrative, and this experience
210
constitutes the literary singularity of this text and, thus, its ethical effectiveness.
The narrative begins with an account of the narrator-character
+HQU\V SUHYLRXV ERRN, ZKLFK WKH WH[W UHYHDOV IHDWXUHG ZLOG DQimals, and many letters came down to questions about them (BaV 29).
This is an obvious reference to Life of Pi. In answering these letters,
+HQU\H[SODLQVWKDWWKH use of animals in his novel [...] was for reasons of craft rather than of sentiment (29). So it seems that Henry
and, by implication, Martel did not have any genuine interest in the
actual animals at all. He admits that, rather, when speaking as a
hXPDQ EHLQJ DERXW KXPDQV KH ZDV OLNHO\ surely D OLDU, while
GUHVVHGLQIXUVDQGIHDWKHUVKHEHFDPHDVhaman and spoke a greater
truth (29). Since Martel plays with the idea that the diegetic authorcharacter can be read as the actual author, Yann Martel, his remarks
on literary animals also concern the animal narrative presented in Life
of Pi. That the animals there were indeed fictional animals is made
rather clear already at the beginning of Beatrice and Virgil:
Readers [of his previous book] assumed he had training in zoology, or at the very
least a lifelong passion for the natural world. He replied that he had the same
broad affection for nature that any sensitive inhabitant of this planet has, but no
outstanding interest in animals, no abiding love for them that might be called a
character trait. (29)
+HQU\V UHDO LQWHUHVW ZH OHDUQ OLHV HOVHZKHUH +H LV DOPRVW Rbsessed with finding ways of representing the Holocaust. At the beginning of the story, we learn that Henry had just finished a new book, a
IOLSERRN DERRNZLWKWZRVHWVRIGLVWLQFWSDJHVWKDWDUHDWWDFKHG
to a common spine upside down and back-to-back to each other (6).
By this design, Henry hopes to account for the dilemma of representation concerning the Shoah, namely our inability to stage the terrible
events fictionally without using the same horrifying numbers and
facts.
That terrifying event was overwhelmingly represented by a single school: historical realism. The story, always the same story, was always framed by the same
GDWHV VHW LQ WKH VDPH SODFHV IHDWXULQJ WKH VDPH FDVW RI FKDUDFWHUV >@ $QG VR
Henry came to wonder: why this suspicion of the imagination, why the resistance
to artful metaphor? A work of art works because it is true, not because it is real.
(10)
211
By again engaging with the question of what he calls the truth of art,
Martel positions Beatrice and Virgil in a continuum with his Life of
PiDQGHYHQZLWKKLVRWKHUZRUNIRUUHDGHUVRI0DUWHOVILFWLRQZLOO
be familiar with his attempts at staging the terrible events of the Shoah
by means of fictionalising them in different contexts. 13 Notably, he
juxtaposes the truth of art and the genre of realism, and, thus, he probOHPDWLVHVUHDOLVWLFQDUUDWLYHVHDUO\RQ
In Beatrice and Virgil, the author-charDFWHUVDWWHPSWWRFRPELQHLQ
a flip book an essay on the history of the National Socialist regime
and a novel to fictionalise it, however, fails: his publisher, as well as a
small committee that has been invited to discuss the draft Henry had
worked on, dismiss it as a failure and refuse to publish it. It is only
towards the end of Beatrice and Virgil that the reader learns how MarWHOVQRYHOIXOILOVWKHWDVNVHWIRUWKHDXWKRU-character by incorporating
the Holocaust into a fictionalised narrative and by destabilising the
human-animal boundary in ways that annoyed and repelled numerous
critics. Writing for the New York Times, Michiko Kakutani calls it
HYHU\ELWDVPLVFRQFHLYHGDQGoffensive as his earlier book was fetching (Kakutani 2010, n.p.; emphasis added). And Ron Charles calls it
DQH[DPSOHRIWKHSHULOVRI+RORFDXVWFUHDWLYLW\LQKLVUHYLHZIRUWKH
Washington Post (2010, n.p.). It is remarkable that most critics miss
the relevance of intertextual negotiations, and that they treat the book
as if it expressed a moral statement about the suffering of people and
animals. As I will show, neither LV WKH FDVH 7KH VXVSLFLRQ RI WKH
LPDJLQDWLRQ (BaV 10), which Henry observes, is ubiquitous in the
reviews however, and the novel negotiates the potential and pitfalls of
WKHGXELRXVDVVXPSWLRQWKDWSHRSOHRXJKWWRWDNHPRUe poetic licence
with Holocaust, as Charles sneers (2010, n.p.).
Taking this poetic licence, the novel narrates the day on which
Henry, who frequently receives fan mail, gets a letter with a mysteriRXVUHTXHVW'HDU6LU,UHDG\RXUERRNDQGPXFKDGPLUHGLW,QHHG
\RXUKHOS (BaV 52). Apparently, one of the readers of Pi has turned
to Henry in order to ask for help with his own ventures into the realm
of literature. Together with the note, Henry receives two textual fragments. One is a short story by Gustave Flaubert in which numerous
DQLPDONLOOLQJVDUHKLJKOLJKWHGLQEULJKW\HOORZ (31) while the rest
13
His novel Self, published in 1997, for example, tried to understand rape by comparing it to the Holocaust. Kamboureli (2007) discusses the representation of the
+RORFDXVWLQ0DUWHOVSelf in detail.
212
of the narrative is not commented upon at all. Henry comes quickly to

the conclusion WKDWWKHKXPDQDQLPDOVRIWKHVWRU\PLJKWEHVXUHO\
SLYRWDO >EXW@ WKH\ GLG QRW DURXVH WKH FXULRVLW\ RI KLV UHDGHU (39).
,QVWHDG KLV UHDGHU VWD\HG ZLWK WKH DQLPDOV DQG WKHLU EORRG\ IDWH
(40).
The second fragment is a piece of a play written by this readerFKDUDFWHU7KHSOD\IHDWXUHVDGRQNH\DQGDPRQNH\FDOOHG%HDWULFH
DQG9LUJLOWKXV providing further intertextual surplus via the referHQFH WR 'DQWHV Commedia 5HPLQLVFHQW DOVR RI %HFNHWWV Waiting
for Godot (at one point, the expression Beckett on horseEDFN comes
up); the two animals in the play are presented as walking through a
deserted environment, talking.
Virgil: Is there anything we can do?
Beatrice: (looking up the road) We could move on.
9LUJLO:HYHGRQHWKDWEHIRUHDQGLWGLGQWJHWXVDQ\ZKHUH
Beatrice: Maybe this time it will.
Virgil: Maybe.
(They do not move.)
Virgil: We could just talk.
%HDWULFH7DONZRQWVDYHXV
Virgil: But it's better than silence.
(Silence.)
(BaV 102-3)
When Henry eventually meets this reader-character, he learns that he

is a taxidermist who claims to be writing the play on behalf of two
animals he has previously prepared. The taxidermist (whose name,
also Henry, adGVWRWKHFRQIXVLRQIRVWHUHGE\WKHQRYHOVPHWDILFWLRQDO
elements) speaks of his profession as a duty to the animals that have
all but gone extinct in our modern lives. By writing fiction, the other
+HQU\KRSHVWRVDYHWKHPE\EHDULQJZLWQHVV as he says (he much
obMHFWV WR PRGHUQ DUW WD[LGHUP\ where animals are overtly UHFRQILJXUHG14 The crucial question in the task of bearing witness, it
seems clear, is truthful and exact representation. This is why he
evokes the lost animals in the dramatic mode, that is, by means of a
deeply mimetic device. In his play, the animal protagonists talk for
pages and pages about a pear: its texture, taste and look, for instance.
14
Martel here comments on the debate about animals and animal trophies in relation
to the human gaze as it has been discussed by John Berger, Jane Desmond and
Donna Haraway. For a discussion of the role of anthropomorphism in informing
WD[LGHUP\DQGDUWWD[LGHUP\VHH.DORI& Fitzgerald (2003).
213
This sounds eerily close to BuHOOVLGHDRIPLPHVLVDQGKLVFODLPWKDW

language shRXOG EH EHQW WRZDUGV WKH ZRUOG (Buell 2008: 33). The
drama about Beatrice and Virgil renders this claim absurd as it is so
VWDUNO\UHIHUHQWLDODVWRVDWLULVHPLPHVLVWRWKHSRLQWRIQRQVHQVH$V
the two animals discuss the form, texture and taste of a pear for eight
pages, their words are despite their realist orientation obviously
EHQWDZD\IURPWKHZRUOG+HQU\VHHNVWRGHSLFW
However, as Bakhtin (1981) states, a play-within-a-novel no longer
has the mimetic quality of a proper play, but becomes a comment on
mimesis. This perspective allows for an ecocritical engagement with
the dramatic mode in Beatrice and Virgil. The dramatic fragments
stage the idea of mimesis rather than truly employing it. Thus, the
GUDPD VWRSV EHLQJ D JHQUH DW DOO, LQ %DNKWLQV ZRUGV EXW >UDWKHU
becomes] the object of representation (51; emphasis orig.). That is to
say, it is no longer a generic but a rhetorical device, and as such invites interpretive speculation about the semantics of realist mimesis.
The dramatic elements open up a negotiation of different means of
representation and allow for a critical (almost derisive) comment on
the ecocritical stance on referentiality.15
+HQU\ WKH WD[LGHUPLVWV SOD\ WXUQV RXW to be the heart-sickening,
deeply moving story of two animals who have suffered human cruelty
and its pointlessness, and who now try to find ways of speaking about
it. They oppose their own voicelessness by making a seemingly arbitrary OLVW WKH +RUURUV Sewing Kit (see BaV 148-9). It contains
phrases and images that are supposed to serve as means of speaking
about what they decLGHWRUHIHUWRDVThe Horrors.16 However, just
15
16
5RODQG%DUWKHVKDVGLVFXVVHGWKHUHDOLW\HIIHFWDOVRLQWHUPVRIWKHUHIHUHQWLDO
LOOXVLRQ WKDW GRHV QRW GHQRWH WKH UHDO EXW PHUHO\ VLJQLILHV LW ,W LV FHUWDLQO\ QR
coincidence that in Beatrice and Virgil such a textual device is contrasted with
)ODXEHUWV ZULWLQJ )ODXEHUW ZDV DJRQLVLngly concerned with questions of form
and formal composition, and his classification as a realist author betrays his interHVWLQWKHSRHWU\ RIWKHVHQWHQFHQRQRYHOLVW, -DPHV:RRGFODLPVSXVKHGWR
such an extreme the potential alienation of form and content (Flaubert longed to
ZULWHZKDWKHFDOOHGDERRNDERXWQRWKLQJ-:RRG
Note the relation between XQVSHDNDELOLW\DQGWKH+RUURUVZKLFKUHIHUWR&RQUDG
(and, in the context of my study, to Ghosh as well). The list is not arbitrary at all,
KRZHYHU2QHLWHPRQWKHOLVW1RZROLSNL6WUHHW, for instance, is the address
of the Ringelblum archive that sought to document the collective memory of the
Warsaw ghetto during World War II. The idea of the archive becomes even more
LQWHUHVWLQJLQLWVUHODWLRQWRWKHWHOOLQJRIVWRULHVLQJHQHUDODQGWR'HUULGDVQRWLRQ
RIWKHOLWHUDU\HYHQWLQSDUWLFXODU'HUULGDPDLQWDLQVWKDWLWLVFKDUDFWHULVWLFRID
214
as the play incorporates animal voices into the context of human artistic production, Henry the author realises that the whole narrative is
also an allegory of the Holocaust and a form of fictionalising it.
:KLOH +HQU\V ZLIH MXVW IURZQV DQG REMHFWV WKDW KH VLPSO\ VHHV WKH
Holocaust everywhere, Henry maintains that to write about the Holocaust is also to write about animal suffering, or animality,WZDVQW
WKDWKHVDZWKH+RORFDXVWLQHYHU\WKLQJ,WVWKDWKHVDZHYHU\WKLQJLQ
the Holocaust (BaV 116).
Of course, the equation of human suffering under the Nazi regime
and the suffering of animals is the most provocative and problematic
comparison possible (see Spiegel 1996; Sztybel 2006). From the perspective of the narrative construction, however, it is important that this
literary engagement with suffering expresses virtually the shared aniPDOLW\RIKXPDQVDQGDQLPDOVDVDFRPPRQVSLQHIRUWZRQDUUDWLYH
objectives. On the other hand, however, Henry (this time the other
one, and this confusion is deliberate, I should think)17 uses the animals
and the alleged realism of his work in order to avoid speaking about
the Holocaust and his own guilt we learn that the taxidermist was in
fact once a Nazi officer, now trying to speak about the Holocaust in
ways that disguise his own share in the horrors of the regime.
So while the equation of human and animal suffering does work on
a narrative level, it produces several serious tensions in the context of
finding a clear-cut meaning and moral. The mise en abyme that
merges the author-character Henry and, eventually, the other Henry,
blurs the distinction between hero and villain, and together with the
image of commodified, stuffed animals repeats the initial claim that
DQLPDOVDUHVLPSO\XVHGfor reasons of craft This time, this literary
and actual commodification causes some legitimate discomfort. Appropriating the speechlessness of the animals, which could have been
understood as a genuine interest in animal suffering from the taxiderPLVWVVLGH, turns out to be his way of atoning for or concealing his
17
singular work-HYHQW>@WKDWLWJDWKHUVERWKVLQJXODUHYHQWV>@DQGDXQLYHUVDO
UHIOHFWLRQ RI LWV RZQ SRVVLELOLW\ Asja Szafraniec has described this notion,
ZKLFK 'HUULGD FDOOV WKH HFRQRPLF-juridical character of the literary work DQG
she tellingl\ VXPPDULVHV LW DV *DWKHULQJ 6SRQJLQJ $UFKLYLQJ 6]DIUDQiec
2007: 31-5).
6SOLWWLQJWKHDXWKRUILJXUHLQWRDQDXWKRU-character Henry and a reader-character
Henry, who turns out to be an author too, points to the Janus face of literary
humanimality: it allows us to think beyond ourselves but also serves to disguise
inhumanity.
215
own past as a Nazi officer. Allegedly bearing witness to animal sufferLQJ EHFRPHV D ZD\ RI FRQFHDOLQJ RQHV RZQ JXLOW 7KH KLJKO\ LQWHrtexual and metafictional rendering of the narrative questions, this
time, the polysemous potential of humanimality in the moment of
invoking it. Unlike Life of Pi, in Beatrice and Virgil, Martel demonstrates the dangers of incorporating the animal other into the cultural
practice of literature. Nevertheless, the text remains emotionally stirring, and it does comment on animal suffering and animality. Having
identified the ostensible conflation of human and animal suffering as
the unforgivDEOHVLQRIWKHQRYHO5RQ&KDUOHVIURZQVDWWKHVWRPDFKturning scene of torture and murder that produces visceral impact by
substituting melodrama for insigKW, apparently less convinced of the
merits of realist depiction now (Charles 2010, n.p.). The fate of Beatrice and Virgil, first presented in a genuine attempt to narrate animal
suffering and suddenly turning into a stand-in literary means of washing clean +HQU\V JXLOW at being a Nazi criminal, epitomises the experience of the confusLQJ chimerical nature of the materialsemiotic nodes that are humans and other animals. While Life of Pi
could be said to argue for a literary understanding of the animal other,
Beatrice and Virgil emphasises the danger of subordinating others to
such literary meaning. Through their intertextual relations, the two
novels thus provide mutual commentary on their humanimal emplotments.
The incapability of truly accounting for the animal is thus staged as
a failure of animal narratives in which animals are (mis)appropriated
for human purposes. The novel presents othered animals, but it also
presents animals as symbols for othering. Moreover, the animals are
thoroughly commodified. On a surface level, their being stuffed
UHDOEXWVRPHKRZSUHVHUYHGPXPPLfied (BaV 59) invites reflection on WKHLUVWDWHVDVJRRGVWKDWDUHFUHDWHGE\KXPDQV7KHVSHFimen beIRUH KLP +HQU\ UHIOHFWV LQ IURQW RI D VWXIIHG RNDSL ZDV D
superlative job. [...] Here, in an otherwise comprehensively manufactured environment, was a small, brilliant patch of tropical Africa
(59). Of course, this experience is not authentic since the taxidermist
crafts, in 'RQQD +DUDZD\V ZRUGV VRPHWKLQJ ILner than the living
RUJDQLVP>@DQHZJHQHVLV (1993: 254). The realist veneer of representation is deconstructed as a worlding strategy by the motif of taxiGHUP\DQGLWOLQNVWKHWHFKQRORJLHVRIHQIRUFHGPHDQLQJ (254) with
the problems of authorial ideology. Beatrice and Virgil thus shows
the inextricability of huPDQV DQG DQLPDOV nodal characteUV DV
216
Haraway calls them, but it also explicates the problem of authoring a

narrative about this chimerical vision'HUULGD OHWDORQHWKHHWhLFVof realism.
It is let me conclude by repeating this by PHDQVRIWKHWH[WVLntertextual and metafictional devices that the tensions they address
invite interpretation and negotiation of animal others as literary characters. The meaning of reading and writing is incorporated through the
author- and reader-FKDUDFWHUV DQG WKH VXGGHQ LQWUXVLRQ RI KXPDQ
FKDUDFWHUVLQ>WKH@DQLPDODOOHJRU\ (BaV 181) truly opens up a horizon of interpretive challenges that outlast by far the actual and leave
us amazed. By deconstructing ways of reading animals, it is, in the
end, not the narrated animal but the reader who remains siOHQW7KH
animal looks at us, 'HUULGD EHDXWLIXOO\ SXWV LW DQG ZH DUH QDNHG
before it. Thinking perhaps begins there (2008: 29).
*****
I have argued above that any reading in terms of EnvironMentality
presupposes an ethical awareness that provides a readerly horizon
with which the textual horizon can merge. By discussing the interplay
of textual meanings and a broadening of the readerly horizon, I have
shown how texts, in that they complement and criticise each other,
engender a dialogue that can foster a self-critical attitude in the reader.
The awareness of the dangers RI FRPPRGLI\LQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO RU
animal ethics inform EnvironMentality, too. The metafictional and
intertextual means of negotiating readerly awareness will also be helpful for my next reading. Instead of arguing that a certain text, or corpus of texts, is capable of making us aware of animal cognition, or
different cultural settings that result in different forms of human perception, EnvironMentality thrives on the limitations of hermeneutic
inquiry just as it opens up new spaces of understanding.
The Hungry Tide showed a fictional harmonisation of allegedly
opposed discourses to be possible, and so did The Heart of Redness.
The narratives, however, by means of their gaps and tensions, could
also be read as a commentary on the problematic aspects of such an
idea: The Heart of Redness illustrates how an uncritical idea of development can serve as a neo-colonial project and The Whale Caller adds
to this a general critique of becoming-animal. The QRYHOVHWKLFDOFRntribution lies first and foremost in their aesthetic force and their ability
to stage the conflicts with which they are concerned. Understanding
217
that the ethical power of literature lies in the experience it provides

also allows us to read animals differently. Instead of looking for moments of becoming, I have suggested that we grant animals their silent
space of unspeakability. Finally, my readings also hinted at the problems of commodification and symbolic appropriation. Thus, we remain aware of the pitfalls of reading ecocritically at the same time as
we are discovering more facets of EnvironMentality.
=HUR7LPHDQGWKH$SRFDO\SVH
Postnatural Survival in Oryx and Crake and
The Year of the Flood
Staging the HQYLURQPHQW DQG HPSORWWLQJ KXPDQ DQLPDO RU KXPDQiPDOLGHQWLWLHVLQILFWLRQUHOy heavily on gaps and tensions that foster
readerly negotiations of meaning. The result of these negotiations, the
literary experience of alterity, constitutes the hermeneutic basis for
EnvironMentality. By arguing for a fluid but subject-based concept of
environmental thinking, I challenge ideas of homogeneity particularly ZLWK UHJDUG WR WKH FRQFHSWV RI QDWXUH FXOWXUH DQG WKH DQiPDO6XFKDvalorisation of difference, however, has been criticised
by Greg Garrard, who associates it with a tendency in ecocritical research to NHHS QDWXUH >@ VHDOHG RII safely in hermetic scarequotes, DQG WR VKXQ DQ\ PHQWLRQ RI KXPDQ QDWXUH LQ JHQHUDO
(2010c: 224). I think that my discussion so far has provided some
arguments why a careful consideration of allegedly universal concepts
VXFK DV QDWXUH DQG KXPDQ QDWXUH PD\ UHVXOW LQ WKH XVH RI VFDUHquotes; however, I find GarrDUGVFODLPWKDWLQVRPHQRYHOV ZHFRPH
to terms wiWK'DUZLQLVPLQWKHIRUPVPRVWXVHIXOWRXV (225) to be
an interesting challenge.
Thus, I am interested in the question of how a Darwinian stance on
literature can benefit the idea of EnvironMentality. By criticising the
DVVRFLDWLRQ RI 'DUZLQLVP ZLWK ELRORJLFDO GHWHUPinism and rightwing ideologies (224), Garrard suggests a reading practice that takes
LQWR DFFRXQW ZD\V RI UHDGLQJ ERWK RXU YDULRXV FXOWXUHV and our
shared human nature, and he does so LQRUGHUWROLEHUDWHWKHKXPDQiWLHVIURPWKHEDOHIXOP\RSLDRIH[WUHPHVRFLDOFRQVWUXFWLRQLVP (240;
emphasis added). Both the intricacies of postcolonial perspectives on
ecocriticism and the necessity to envision literary truth through uncertainties rather than scientific facts suggest that this study ultimately
cannot acFHSW WKH Darwinian viewpoint Garrard proposes. Nevertheless, I think it worthwhile to consider how novels negotiate the idea
of human and animal embeddedness in a natural environment, and
220
processes of evolution, hybridisation, and transformation. Understood

WKLV ZD\ D 'DUZLQLDQ YLHZSRLQW WKDW VXJJHVWV D VKDUHG QDWXUH FDQ
indeed be said to bring together the elements discussed in previous
chapters when LWDOORZVIRUDQDWXUDOFXOWXUDOUHDGLQJRIKXPDQLPDO
experiences. Ultimately, such a reading will interrogate the distinction
between science and art, and notions RIUHDODQGIDNH, as this chapter will show, and it will offer a valuable perspective on the dichotomies it destabilises. Therefore, it will not assume that a Darwinian
viewpoint provides any certainties; on the contrary, this stance will
add moments of ambiguity and flux. The environment for a reading
that thus radically questions the dividing lines between nature and
culture LV D SRVWQDWXUDO RQH (on this concept, see Curry 2008;
McKibben [1989] 2006). In scrutinising narrative engagements with a
postnatural world, I will in this chapter further explore interpretive
negotiations of environmental experience: of highly fictionalised
environments, of the question of identity in a postnatural world, and of
WKHFRQGLWLRQRIZKDW8PEHUWR(FRFDOOVK\SHUUHDOLW\(FRVHH
also Phillips 2003: 20-4).
By including science in literary discourse and thus rendering it a
motif of representation, fiction provides an important commentary on
the role of science in the context of environmental crises and the crisis
of the imagination. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, it situDWHVWKHKXPDQLQWKLVQDWXUDOFXOWXUDOFRQWH[WRIWKRVHZKROLYHLQ
the timescape of the technopresent, as Haraway calls it (2008: 135).1
As these neologisms suggest, such fiction will engage once more with
the violent hierarchies of dualistic thinking. I will DUJXHWKDW$WZRRGV
dystopias Oryx and Crake 2 and The Year of the Flood 3 present the
1
2
3
7KH LQFUHDVH LQ WKH QXPEHU RI QHRORJLVPV VXFK DV QDWXUHFXOWXUH KXPDQLPDO
DQG QRZ WHFKQRSUHVHQWWHFKQRVFLHQFH seems to suggest that it is virtually
neologisms DOOWKHZD\ GRZQIt may be helpful to see them as attempts to express the limits of analytical language. Haraway (2008) describes our times as
PDUNHG E\ D SHFXOLDU DWWLWXGH WR KLVWRU\ DQG ZULWHV WKDW ZH WHQG WR GHVFULEH
everything as new, as revolutionary, as future oriented, as a solution to the problems of the past (135). I will try to connect this diagnosis of the present with the
dystopian vision of a possible IXWXUHLQ$WZRRGVQRYHOVDQG argue that the lanJXDJH RI WKH WHFKQRSUHVHQW is an eerily empty one. That my own language resorts to the same tone in order to account for the newness of literary experiences
is an important tension that adds to the ambivalences discussed here and in the
following chapter.
In the following referred to as OaC.
In the following referred to as TYotF.
=HUR7LPHDQGWKH$SRFDO\SVH221
vision of a postnatural world where dualist thinking has dissolved

but, since the novels are clearly dystopian, they formulate an obvious
critique of this state. Especially in the context of green thinking and
the environmentalist attempt to do away with binaries in favour of an
ecocentric unity, this critique is surely relevant.
In his essay on the connection between (FRFULWLFLVPDQG'DUZLnism, Garrard also discusses the work of Ian McEwan, who concluded
the commentary on his 2005 Cape Farewell sojourn by stating that
ZHZLOOQRWUHVFXHWKHHDUWKIURPRXURZQGHSUHGDWLRQVXQWLOZHXnderstand ourselves a little more. [...] Leave nothing to idealism or outrageRUHYHQJRRGDUW (McEwan 2005: n.p.; quoted in Garrard 2010c:
240). McEwan poses a harsh but relevant question here: What role, if
any, can literature and art play in the context of environmental crisis?
Surely they cannot be expected to solve the crisis or to improve huPDQLW\V WKLQNLQJ DERXW WKH HQYLURQPHQW offhand. McEwan summarises the complex reasons for our inability to react to an apparent crisis
in his narraWLYH$%RRW5RRPLQWKH)UR]HQ1RUWK
[T]he owner of size 43 boots left them last night in a remote corner he has already
forgotten about. He comes out this morning, sees to hand another pair of 43s and
puts them on. Half an hour later, their true owner comes out into the gloom of the
boot room, cannot see his own boots, cannot see the 43s obscurely stowed, and
empowered by a sense of victimhood, does exactly what you are doing now:
reaching for the nearest 44s. [...] Meanwhile, as Arctic night gathers tightly
around Tempelfjord, inside the toasty warmth of our Ark [...], we discuss plans to
save a planet many times larger than our boot room. (McEwan 2005; n.p.)
0F(ZDQVVDUFDVWLFDFFRXQWRIWKH%RRW5RRP painfully points out

that it is our own flawed nature that needs consideration and not
sophisticated schemes of ecological management or a discussion of
how much good will or good prose will be able to change the
world.4
In the context of EnvironMentality, this means that it cannot sufILFH WR DGGUHVV TXHVWLRQV RI QDWXUHV DOWHULW\ RU WKH Rtherness of animals what needs consideration is WKHYHU\TXHVWLRQRIWKHKXPDQ
Just as Garrard engages with the Darwinian plots in the novels of
Margaret Atwood and Ian McEwan, I will continue this discussion
4
McEwan has fictionalised his experience in Solar (2010). It is interesting to look

at this novel in more detail and with regard to the formal consequences of the
transition from non-fictional report to novel (for instance by changing the bleak
and sarcastic tone of the former to the ironic and humorous tone of the latter).
222
KHUH , WDNH $WZRRGV WZR SXEOLVKHG ERRNV IURP WKH MaddAddam

trilogy as examples and re-assess their Darwinian elements with regard to their potential for the cautious hermeneutics of EnvironMentality. By focussing on the ways the two novels constitute their
singularity, I will argue that these texts narratively illuminate the role
of negotiations of a technoscientific, postnatural reality and the human
beings that live in it. Thus, they offer a way of re-WKLQNLQJ WKH KuPDQWKH\ integrate moments of difference and alterity and present a
commonly shared, creatural basis.
$WZRRGVSRVWQDWXUDOG\VWRSLDVSURYLGHIRUVRPHFKDOOHQJLQJDQG
important comments on human nature and the ambiguous role of culture in the environmental crisis. In The End of Nature, Bill McKibben
argues that by changing the atmosphere,
we make every spot on earth man-made and artificial. We have deprived nature of
LWV LQGHSHQGHQFH DQG WKDW LV IDWDO WR LWV PHDQLQJ 1DWXUHV LQGHSHQGHQFH is its
meaning; without it there is nothing but us. (2006: 50; emphasis orig.)
The postnatural world, as it were, is a world where most of the diFKRWRPLHV RI QDWXUH DQG FXOWXUH VFLHQFH DQG HWKLFV DQG HFR DQG
HJR KDYH EHHQ DEROLVKHG but it is also a world of desolation and
loneliness for human beings. In engaging with the motif of loneliness
in connection with postnatural environments, and by addressing the
paradoxical conflict that overcoming these dichotomies entails, I will
discuss the literary experience of an otherness that affects the very
concept of humanity.
Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood tell stories of postapocalyptic survival. Notably, both novels tell the same story but
from different perspectives. While Oryx and Crake relates apocalyptic
events in a not-too-distant futuUH DIWHU WKH SURWDJRQLVWV IRUPHU EHVW
friend has extinguished almost the entire human population with the
OHWKDO%O\ssPlussSill, The Year of the Flood complements this narrative with the perspectives of other survivors.5 Two aspects are important in my reading of these dystopias: the role of time and timelessness, and the development from autodiegetic narrative to a narrative that features various perspectives and focalisers. These elements
complicate the QRYHOV FODVVLILFDWLRQ DV dystopian fiction, but they
5
7KH WURSH DQG LPDJHU\ RI VXUYLYDO QRWDEO\ OLQNV WKH QRYHOV WR $WZRRGV RWKHU
writings and to her work on Canadian identity (see Atwood 2004, and also Ingersoll 2004).
emphasise the singularity of dystopian thought in that they question

the process of ecocentric harmonisation.
The discourse on time is pivotal in both novels. On a narrative
level, Oryx and Crake presents two timelines one set before the
apocalypse and one set afterwards and in the course of the story
deconstructs the implied teleology of the chronological narrative.
Moreover, the novel connects the vision of a dystopian future with the
reality of the contemporary world of the first decade of the millennium. As Kylie Crane shows, many of the dystopian elements of the
QRYHOKDYHEHFRPHUHDOLW\DOUHDG\DQGterrifying effects are created
by only slight variations or extrapolations. Thus, Crane argues,
[b]y following a strategy of changing only a IHZYDULDEOHVWKHWH[WVWKHPDWLFXrgency is increased: The world presented in Oryx and Crake remains accessible to
the reader as it is not entirely foreign or unconceivable. (2009: 246)6
6LQFH$WZRRGVG\VWRSLDFDQEHOLQNHGWRWKHH[SHULHQFHVRIWKHUeadership, her vision implies the urgency to react the terrifying processes the novel is concerned with have already begun, and the necessity is there to react now. At the same time, the novel presents a vision
of timelessness that contradicts the message of urgency. This tension
constitutes an important effect that I will discuss below. For the assessment of the motif of the apocalypse, it is important to see that
VLQFH WKH WH[WV FRQVWDQWO\ UHIHU WR RXU SUHVHQW DQG FUHDWH OLQNDJHV
between dystopian vision and present-day experience, they develop a
utopian potential. Crane therefore describes the novel as having a
SUHFDXWLRQDU\PHVVDJHDQGFODLPVWKDWLWFDQEHUHDGDOWHUQDWLYHO\
as apocalyptic, utopian or dystopian (241). Present-day phenomena
are exaggerated or projected into the future in ways that are intended
to sharpen the awareness for dangerous developments and trends that
are already taking place. Thus, the texts create a sense of urgency (to
react before it is too late) and emplot a feeling of (postnatural) deadlock. According to theories of utopia/dystopia, this tension con-stitutes
the modern utopian genre: Edward James argues that in the twentyfirst century, 0RUHV FODVVLFDOXWRSLDKDVEHFRPHDYLFWLPWRWZHQWi6
7KH FRQFHSW RI WKH UHDGHU LV LQ OLQH ZLWK P\ QRWLRQ RI D KHUPHQHXWLFDOO\ FRQFHLYHG LPSOLHG :HVWHUQ UHDGHU VLQFH WKH G\VWRSLDQ ZRUOG RI Oryx and Crake
UHVHPEOHVWKHOLYHGUHDOLW\RID:HVWHUQWHFKQRVFLHQWLILFVRFLHW\&UDQHLVDZDUH
RIWKLVWRRDQGLQP\UHDGLQJ,ZLOOHODERUDWHRQWKLVFRQFHSWRIWKH:HVWvs the
UHVWconstruction (see also Crane 2009: 256).
224
eth-century pessimism and cynicism (James 2003: 219; see also

Mohr 2007). He therefore calls the dystopian viVLRQ D mutated utopia which still seeks to imagine better ways of living. The tension
that informs Oryx and Crake corresponds to this dialectical scheme.
$OWKRXJK VXFKIRUPV RI DSRFDO\SWLF ZULWLQJ VHHP WREH D QHFHssary component of HQYLURQPHQWDO GLVFRXUVH (Garrard 2004: 104),
ecocritical work on dystopia struggles with the utopian potential of
these texts. It is certainly true that dystopian narratives and the scenarLRV RI ULVN WKH\ LQYRNH WHQG WR EH IDU PRUH DYDLODEOH WR WKH JHQHUal
public than scientific information (Heise 2008: 137). Thus, they provide a culture with the means to negotiate the dangers of technological
advancement and economic progress at the cost of the environment.
Ursula Heise shows, for instance, KRZFHUWDLQ visual images come to
function as shorthands for particular dangers and crises (137). With
the touching and shocking images and tropes she creates, Atwood
indeed presents strong metaphors and forms of representation that
emplot a critique of environmental devastation and the threat a postnatural environment may pose to human beings and animals alike.
At the same time, however, dystopian narratives just like the
other texts I have discussed so far do not convey cultural LQIRUPaWLRQDQGLW ZRXOGEHWoo facile to read them solely in terms of their
scientific content. If scientific comment did not play a role, however,
the effect of dystopian literature might be reduced to a sense of impending doom that would possibly stress and overstrain readers. While
Lawrence Buell has identified apocalyptic narrative templates and
WKHLUG\VWRSLDQHQYLURQPHQWVDVWKHPRVWSRZHUIXOPDVWHUPHWDSKRU
that the contemporary environmental imagination has at its disposal
(Buell 1995: 285), and while ecocriticism in its early days certainly
did rely strongly on apocalyptic rhetoric, Greg Garrard suggests that
apocalyptic narratives and dystopian visions have to be taken with a
grain of salt:
Whilst the strategic dangers of such rhetoric may be identified along with its
somewhat disreputable genealogy, its validity must ultimately be judged by a
careful consideration of the evidence, derived from historical trends, and from [a]
variety of projections of, say, global population or climate change that legitimate
scientific dissension will produce. (2004: 107)
I will argue, however, that by means of its narrative discourse, Oryx

and Crake elicits such considerations LI QRW RI HYLGHQFH WKHQ RI
imaginaries. In the end, the novel thus not only narrates the end of
human beings but also the role that narratives play in this process.
Thus, its apocalypticism becomes a meta-commentary on the role of
narrating the world. This LV HQJHQGHUHG E\ WKH QRYHOV WUHDWPHQW RI
WLPH DQGLGHQWLW\ %\ MX[WDSRVLQJ VORZ YLROHQFH 1L[RQDQGdeep
KLVWRULFDO WLPH +XWWRQ/\HOO ZLWK D SHUVRQDO QDUUDWLYH RI ORVV DQG
loneliness, Oryx and Crake questions its own dystopian prerequisites;
the supraindividual processes of decline as well as the temporal singularity of apocalypse.
Garrard identifies a number of serious problems of dystopian narraWLYHV WKH HPEDWWOHG PRYHPHQWV WR SDUDQRLD DQG YLROHQFH, an
H[WUHPHPRUDOGXDOLVPWKDWGLYLGHVWKHZRUOd sharply into friend and
enemy, WKHHPSKDVLVRIWKHXQYHLOLQJ>FIapo-calyptein] of transhistRULFDOWUXWK, which divides readers into believers and unbelievers;
and the proleptic pretence of the imaginative narratives (Garrard
2004: 86, emphasis orig.)$WZRRGVQRYHOVQHJRWLDWHWKHVHLVVXHVRQ
the level of the discourse and thus create a tension with their classification as dystopian fiction. By complicating the distinction between
QRZ DQG WKHQ WKH G\VWRSLDQ YLVLRQ KDV DOZD\V FUHDWHG D WHQVLRQ
between eschatology and hope. In particular, last-man narratives from
6KHOOH\V The Last Man WR %R\OHV A Friend of the Earth
WKXVFDOOLQWRTXHVWLRQWKHGLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQXVDQGWKHP
temporally and with regard to the question of the intended readerVKLS $WZRRGV ILFWLRQ LV QR H[HPSWLRQ ,Q WKH FRQWH[W RI EnvironMentality, these questions are productive because it is the narrative
form DQGQRWDQ\XQYHLOHGLQIRUPDWLRQWKDWEULQJVHQYLURQPHQWDOLVW
DUJXPHQWV RI XUJHQF\ DQG WKH JORRP DQG GRRP SHUVSHFWLYH RI
dystopia into fruitful tension with aspects of hope. Ultimately, this
tension renders the apocalypse a trope that engages with the role of
ILFWLRQIRUWKHDSRFDO\SVHRIWKHLPDJLQDWLRn.7
By maintaining the creatural aspects of the human, and by connectLQJ HYROXWLRQDU\ WKRXJKW DQG FXOWXUDO QHJRWLDWLRQ $WZRRGV WH[WV
VXFFHHG LQ VWDJLQJ WKH FXOWXUDlly formative power of language, as
Sylvia Mayer claims, and they show how the solitude of postnatural
HQYLURQPHQWV PXVW EH UHODWHG WR WKH ORVV RI D OLQJXLVWLF FRPPXQLW\
that guarantees the existence of a shared, communicable reality
7
*DUUDUG GHVFULEHV 0F.LEEHQV LGHD RI D SRVWQDWXUDO ZRUOG DV DQ DSRFDO\SVHRIWKHLPDJLQDWLRQ6LQFH,GLVFXVVHQYLURQPHQWDOFULVLVDVDFULVLVRI
the imagination, this connection renders the interpretation of postnatural environments an important element of EnvironMentality.
226
(2006: 126). ,DJUHHZLWK0D\HUVFODLPDQGtake it to complement the

idea of a strictly Darwinian viewpoint. In so doing, I reassess the evoOXWLRQDU\ FRPPHQWDU\ WKDW LQIRUPV $WZRRGV QRYHOV as the vantage
point for critique. While biotic diverVLW\DQGWKHZRUOGDUHFHUWDLQO\
under threat, so are linguistic diversity and the imagination. Conflating these two fields leads to the dystopian vision of the novels discussed in this chapter. That dichotomies have to be overcome is a
commonplace assumption of environmental philosophy; that this can
result in dystopia is a challenging but necessary provocation. It suggests an engagement with the meaning of the human in, and for, a
QDWXUH SRVW-QDWXUH. The texts thus lead back to the question of humanity as an ethico-ontological concept not LQ WHUPV RI NQRZlHGJH KRZHYHU EXW E\ PHDQV RI D KHUPHQHXWLF HQJDJHPHQW ZLWK
categories of WKHKXPDQQDWXUHHWKLFV DQGUHDOLW\
5HDGLQJ$WZRRGVQRYHOVZLOOWKHUHIRUHPHDQWRKLJKOLJKWWKHDmbiguities that question a number of the dichotomies that these categories rely on IURP QRZ DQG WKHQ WR XV DQG WKHP DQG RQFH
more, nature and culture. Eventually, these dichotomies will be
deconstructed, so that the novels seem to provide some spark of utopia. The deconstruction of dichotomies, however, ultimately engenGHUV WKH QRYHOV G\VWRSLDQ HIIHFW (see Cooke 2006: 68). The tension
that informs this paradoxical interrogation of utopian vision and
dystopian scenario, and the impossibility of finalising ethical discourses about the environment, allows us to replace the claim of
trans-historical truth, which relies on the assessment and incorporation of scientific and sRFLRORJLFDOWKHRULHVE\WKHWUXWKRIILFWLRQWKDW
is in the focus of hermeneutics.
*****
Oryx and Crake tells the story of Jimmy, who seems to be the only
human survivor after the end of human life, which was brought about
E\ WKH GHDGO\ BlyssPluss SLOO FUHDWHG E\ -LPP\V IULHQG &UDNH
Jimmy is the only focaliser, and his narrative shifts between preapocalyptic flashbacks and post-apocalyptic present tense.
-LPP\6QRZPDQ LV D ODVW PDQ EXW KH LV XQUHOLDEOH FRQIXVHG DQG
shattered. 8 As UHDGHUV IROORZ -LPP\6QRZPDQV VWXPEOLQJ WKURXJK
8
Introduced by Jean-Baptiste Cousin de Grainville in Le Dernier Homme (1805)

and Mary Shelley in The Last Man (1826)WKHODVWPDQLVQRZa frequent ele-
his world, they experience what it means to say that ZHKDYHVROYHG

the puzzle of our estrangement from nature by making strange nature
LWVHOI DV 'DQD 3KLOOLSVUHPDUNV (1996: 214). This is the postnatural
world. My reading will show how in engaging with this scenario, Atwood presents a world where nature and culture have become one and
where, as I will argueDGLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQLVDQGRXJKWno longer
make sense. That is to say, by challenging the attempt to deconstruct
the nature/culture divide, the text also challenges ecocentric thinking
in a productive way.
The postnatural scenario of Oryx and Crake is closely connected to
a satirical description of a (late-)capitalist society. It thus connects an
estrangement from nature and the consequences of this estrangement
for conceptions of human identity with economic development and the
progress of technoscience. In the pre-apocalyptic world of Oryx and
Crake, science had advanced immensely and genetic enhancement and
biotechnology permeate the lives of the characters, anytime, anywhere. The results of total commodification and an almost obsessive
interest in entertainment are similarly omnipresent. It is possible to
watch live executions and snuff porn involving children on the internet; and while the middle class seems to have been erased completely,
people live either in the chaotic outskirts of the ubiquitous urban environments the SOHHEODQGV or in highly secured and sealed-off
FRPSRXQGV9 These compounds are exemplarily postmodern living
environments: as simulacra of a nature no longer existent, fake hills
surround houses whose decor imitate Georgian or Italian-Renaissance
styles, reflecting the status of their inhabitants. While
-LPP\6QRZPDQVPRWKHUVQHHUVWKDWLWZDVDOODUWLILFLDOLWZDVMXVW
a theme park and you could never bring the old ways back (OaC 27),
most of the people have come to terms with the situation.
7KH IDNH HQYLURQPHQW KDV DQ HIIHFW on its inhabitants, however.
The postnatural condition is closely linked to postmodernism in that it
links questions of nature and authenticity with social adjustments to
simulacra and artificial environments. -LPP\6QRZPDQVIDWKHULVDQ
example of such postnatural/postmodern adjustments: throughout the
pre-apocalyptic story line, his inauthentic behaviour annoys
ment of dystopias. Its ecological and non-dualist implications have been discussed
by Heise (2010c: 123) and Korte (2008).
Notably, this distinction reiterates the nature/culture divide in a strictly artificial,
man-made setting.
228
-LPP\6QRZPDQZKRWKLQNVKLVIDWKHUEHKDYHVDVLI>KH@ZHUHDXGitioning for the role of Dad, but without much hope (OaC 52). While
Jimmy/Snowman feels uneasy about the consequences of postnatural
adaptations, his friend Glenn/Crake at least accepts these developments. The text suggests that he might in fact be better adapted to this
environment, and it underlines the evolutionary subtext by distinguishLQJ EHWZHHQ word perVRQV and numbers persons. UndoubtHGO\ WKH QXPEHUV SHUVRQV DUH ILWWHU LQ D QHROLEHUDO-biologist sense.
Glenn/Crake LV VXFK D QXPEHUV SHUVRQ DV RSSRVHG WR WKH ZRUG
SHUVRQ -LPP\/Snowman who is interested in art and other obsolete
pastimes) and KHODWHUUHIHUVWR-LPP\6QRZPDQDVQHXURW\SLFDO. To
Jimmy/Snowman, this VHHPHGWREHOLNHFDOOLQJKLPD&UR-Magnon
RUVRPHWKLQJ1H[WVWHSWKH\GEHSXWWLQJKLPLQDFDJHIHHGLQJKLP
bananas, and poking him with electropods (OaC 203). Interestingly,
Jimmy deliberately adopts this degradation after the apocalypse, referULQJ WR KLPVHOI DV WKH $ERPLQDEOH 6QRZPDQ a reference to the
Yeti, ZKRLVERWKP\WKLFDQGVXE-KXPDQ. Jayne Glover remarks that
>E@\ FDOOLQJ KLPVHOI WKH $ERPLQDEOH 6QRZPDQ >-LPP\@ UHMHFWV
&UDNHV UXOH DW 3DUDGLFH WKDW QR QDPH FRXOG EH FKRVHQ IRU ZKLFK D
SK\VLFDOHTXLYDOHQW>@FRXOGQRWEHGHPRQVWUDWHG (2009: 58). This,
she concludes, shows how for Jimmy, IDQWDV\ DQG UHDOLW\ EHFRPH
one (58). It moreover shows that becoming one and merging inform
the dystopian subtext in a way that makes it hard to discern whether
non-dualisms are part of the problem or the solution.
Snowman is not a new identity but the result of a merging of dichotomies. 10 This is why it is a mistake to read the novel with a focus
RQ WKH FOHDU GLYLVLRQ EHWZHHQ *OHQQ&UDNHV DQG -LPP\6QRZPDQV
characters or the ethical stances each character personifies. Ursula
Heise oversimplifies the matter when she claims that Crake represents
WKH VWHUHRW\SH RI D FROG GLVWDQFHG \HW LQJHQLRXV VFLHQWLVW ZKRVH
world-devastating ambitions are countered by a rather old-fashioned
10
The same can be said about Glenn/Crake who does not change but comes into his
own during the apocalypse. Jimmy/Snowman recalls that before the apocalypse,
&UDNH ZDVQW &UDNH \HW >@ KLV QDPH ZDV *OHQQ >@ 6QRZPDQ KDV WURXEOH
WKLQNLQJ RI &UDNH DV *OHQQ VR WKRURXJKO\ KDV &UDNHV ODWHU SHUVRQD EORWWHGRXW
his earlier one. The Crake side of him must have been there from the beginning,
>@ WKHUH ZDV QHYHU DQ\ UHDO *OHQQ Glenn ZDV RQO\ D GLVJXLVH OaC 70-1;
emphasis orig.1RWHWKDWERWKLGHQWLWLHVDUHPHUHO\SHUVRQDH for example, as
Elliot (2006) shows, the text suggests that the nDPH*OHQQLVDUHIHUHQFHWRWKH
pianist Glenn Gould.
humanism [by Jimmy] (2010c: 126; my translation). Heise criticises

the dichotomous structure of the novel and coQFOXGHV WKDW LW LV QRW
really convincing because of its black-and-white worldview (Heise
2010c: 126; my translation). But black and white have merged to become a postnatural grey, and by this merging, these clear-cut distinctions have vanished. Glenn/CraNHV HWKLFV is a clear example. He is
not at all cold and distanced but a fervent if misanthropic thinker
whose ethical stance, for example, his idea that human overpopulation
needs to be controlled and that the world needs a new, ecological utopia, closely resembles deep-ecological thinking. Moreover,
Glenn/Crake embraces human animality and accepts the evolutionary
continuum between man and animal that allows him to add the genetic
sequences of animals to his new-IRUPHGKXPDQEHLQJVThink of an
adaptation, any adaptation, and some animal somewhere will have
thought of it first (OaC 164; emphasis orig.; see also Glover 2009: 55
for a comparable argument). 6R ZKLOH +HLVH GLVPLVVHV WKH QRYHOV
value as a contribution to philosophical debate, for me, thH QRYHOV
singularity lies in its presentation of a dialogue between science and
humanist scholarship in eerie, discomforting terms. As the novel presents and gradually deconstructs the dichotomy between ecological
ethics and technoscience, it also critically comments on ecological/ecocritical discourses and on attempts to incorporate science into
ethical critique. It thus eventually reflects on contemporary developPHQWVLQELRHWKLFVZKLFKDUHDV:ROIHVWDWHVbest understood, perhaps, not as an ethics but rather as a textbook example of what Michel
)RXFDXOW KDV DQDO\]HG DV WKH ULVH RI ELRSRZHU GXULQJ WKH PRGHUQ
period:ROIH
While Glenn/Crake incorporates disputable forms of ecological
thinking, Jimmy/Snowman represents a humanism that invites criticism too. He studied at 0DUWKD *UDKDP a decrepit college where
those who are not clever enough to study the technosciences engage
with the humanities and the arts. SWXG\LQJWKHUHZHOHDUQZDVOLNH
studying Latin, or book-binding: pleasant to contemplate in its way,
but no longer central to anything (OaC 187). While the humanities
and the arts not unlike the development in academia today were
slowly being redefined according to the market value of the qualifications they offer, Jimmy/Snowman, who is aware of this development,
tries to counter it with a belief in humanism. However, his humanist
belief is little more than lip service. It is superficial and restricted to
condescending comments about others. This shows, for instance,
230
ZKHQKHGHVFULEHVKRZHYHU\WKLQJDW0DUWKD*UDKDPKDGXWLOLWDULDQ
aims. Our Students Graduate With Employable Skills, ran the motto
underneath the original Latin motto, which was Ars Longa Vita Brevis (OaC 188, emphasis orig.). At the same time, he is unable to
change his own behaviour, either because he lacks the strength to do
so, or because in a postnatural world the ethical impetus of humanism
has become impossible. When nature and culture have become one,
WKHUHLVQRRXJKWRQO\LVHe feels disgusted when first encounterLQJ WKH KRUULEOH &KLFNLH1REV 21XEELQV D JHQHWLFDOO\ HQJLQHHUHG
chicken splice without eyes or beak that consists of edible parts only,
but he gets perfectly accustomed to eating them in the course of the
novel. His insistence on high culture, love and humanism is, moreover, constantly betrayed by his behaviour, for example by the way he
engages in a love-affairs:
+HGGUDZRXWRI>KLVJLUOIULHQGV@WKHLUVWRULHVRIKXUWKHGDSSO\KLPVHOIWRWKHP
like a poultice. But soon the process would reverse, and Jimmy would switch
from bandager to bandage. [...] But he took care never to get any less melancholy
RQDSHUPDQHQWEDVLV,IKHZHUHWRGRWKDWWKH\GH[SHFWDUHZDUGRIVRPHVRUWRU
a result at least. (OaC 190)
While Jimmy/Snowman is here presented as a rational and calculating character, parasitical on the idea of humanism rather than embodying it, Glenn/Crake shows traits of the feelings Jimmy/Snowman
only play-DFWV %HFDXVH -LPP\6QRZPDQV IRFDOisation significantly
influences the narrative, it is hard to make definite judgments about its
reliability. This makes it even more significant that the ending leaves
open whether Glenn/Crake had really cold-heartedly decided for the
extinction of mankind or whether it had all been done because
Glenn/Crake had by then learned that Jimmy/Snowman and the beautiful Oryx had cheated on him. That is to say, it is Glenn/Crake who
had been in love with Oryx:
[H]ow much did he know, when did he know it, was he spying on them all along?
[...] With so much at stake, was he afraid of failure, of being just one more incompetent nihilist? Or was he tormented by jealousy, was he addled by love, was
it revenge, did he just want Jimmy to put him out of his misery? (OaC 343)
Neither the idea that Jimmy/Snowman is a full-fledged humanist nor

the clich that Glenn/Crake is a cold-hearted, mad scientist can be
upheld. Rather, these boundaries are unsettled, and the postnatural
world is presented as a world where such attributions do not make

sense any more.
The world depicted in Oryx and Crake is a world that is ecologically aware enough to subsist on soy dishes, to be fond of vegetarian
IRRGLQJHQHUDODQGWRGULYHVRODUPRELOHVKRPRVH[XDOLW\LVDccepted
and the companies working on scientific progress of all sorts seem to
have a genuine interest in securing the survival of the species. The
problem is not the black-and-white world view; the problem is that in
a postnatural world, these differences do not matter. Jimmy/Snowman
and Glenn/Crake are far too ambivalent to be taken as stand-ins for
philosophical or scientific notions, and the experience of a world that
is postnatural cannot provide us with any secure insight into how to
behave in ecologically and ethically sound ways since politics and
biology are, in fact, one. This is underlined by the increasing problems
in understanding what is real and the concept of reality as such. The
LQVHFXULW\ DV WR ZKDW FRXQWV DV UHDO Vhows in Glenn anG -LPP\V
discussion about the butterflies at the Watson-Crick-Institute: Jimmy
wants tRNQRZZKHWKHUWKH\DUHUHFHQW, to which Glenn replies:
<RXPHDQGLGWKH\RFFXULQQDWXUHRUZHUHWKH\FUHDWHGE\WKHKDQGRIPDQ">@
$IWHULWKDSSHQVWKDWVZKDW they look like in real time. The process is no longer
important. (OaC 200)
Glover argues that what Haraway had identifies DVWKHSOHDVXUHLQWKH

FRQIXVLRQ RI ERXQGDULHV LQ WKH SRVWQDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW eventually
turns against humans and WKLVFRQIXVLRQof boundaries is partly what
DOORZV &UDNH WR DVVXPH WKDW WKH QDWXUDO ZRUOG >@ LV SDUW RI DQ
HQRUPRXVODERUDWRU\ZKLFKKHKDVWKHULJKWWRFRQWUROGlover 2009,
53).
Consequently, the whole idea of individual ethical decisions becomes obsolete now that everything is part of a huge, greenwashed
interconnectedness of technoscience and bioethics. Dana Phillips
likewise claims that the focus on personal consciousnesses is misplaced in postnatural environments. There is, he says,
little or no solace [...] available that way, because the self is not only invaded but
VKDSHGE\WKDWZKLFKLWZRXOGHVFDSH>@:HGRQWNQRZRXUVHOYHVLQWKHVHQHZ
behaviours, [...] [and] we cannot (as individuals) sign off [from the alien totality]
by cancelling the social conWUDFWDQGJRLQJEDFNWRQDWXUH>@3RVWPRGHUQHxSHULHQFH LV QRW D SV\FKRORJLFDO FDWHJRU\ EXW D FROOHFWLYH RQH WKRXJKKDUGO\ LQ
the utopian sense. (Phillips 1996: 210)
232
By emplotting the postnatural world and, in close connection, the subsequent GHWHULRUDWLRQRIKXPDQLGHQWLW\$WZRRGVG\VWRSLDn tale transcends the confines of eco-apocalyptic alarmism. Although Atwood
incorporates this discourse and situates it in a postnatural environment, her text suggests a reading that is at the same time environmentally concerned and critical of this very stance. After all, the humanist
concept of the self, anthropocentric as it inevitably must be, seems
necessary. Its lack informs the dystopian aspects of the text. In the
QRYHO WKH difficulty of reality has become undissolvable because
reality has become hyperreality; it is sustainable and green EXW UHDO
without origin or reality, as Jean Baudrillard describes the hyperreal
(1998: 166). The novel forces its readers to think about the LUUDGLDting synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere (166), and about the share of ecological thinking in a process
that renders the distinctions between humanism, technoscience, nature
and culture obsolete.
*****
With regard to the role of Darwinism in literature, my reading foregrounds the view that it is Glenn/Crake who accepts the fact that we
DUHWKHUHDGLQJ WKLQNLQJIHHOLQJ QDNHG DSH DW WKH FHQWUH RI WKH Kumanistic inquiry, as Garrard puts it (2010c: 224). Much to humanLW\V GLVDGYDQWDJH KRZHYHU KH FRQFOXGHV WKDW WKH KXPDQ UDFH LV
flawed. He explains love and art as biologically determined in a quasiDarwinian manner11 and decides to abolish these things in the species
he creates the Crakers:
How much misery, [...] how much needless despair has been caused by a series of
biological mismatches, a misalignment of the hormones and pheromones? ResultLQJLQWKHIDFWWKDWWKHRQH\RXORYHVRSDVVLRQDWHO\ZRQWRUFDQWORYH\RX$VD
VSHFLHVZHUHSDWKHWLFLQWKDWZD\imperfectly monogamous. (OaC 166)
-LPP\6QRZPDQGHVSHUDWHO\DOOXGHVWRWKHPHWDSK\VLFDOTXDOLWLHVRI
art WKLQN3HWUDUFKWKLQN-RKQ'RQQHWKLQNWKHVita Nuova (167)
but Glenn/Crake explains these metaphysics of art away:
11
I am perfectly aware of the fact that this does not do justice to Darwinian thinking
DW DOO 'DUZLQLVP in this case rather stands for a radical biologism that approaches art, culture, and socLHW\IURPDQHYROXWLRQDU\SHUVSHFWLYH not unlike
CrakeDQGPD\EHQRWXQOLNHOLWHUDU\'DUZLQLVWV.
The female frog, in mating season [...] makes as much noise as it can. The females
are attracted to the male frog with the biggest, deepest voice because it suggests a
more powerful frog, one with superior genes. Small male frogs LWVEHHQGRFumented discover that if they position themselves in empty drainpipes, the pipe
acts as a voice amplifier, and the small frog appears much larger than it really is.
>@6RWKDWVZKDWDUWLVIRUWKHDUWLVW>@$QHPSW\GUDLQSLSH$QDPSOLILHU$
stab at getting laid. (OaC 168)12
So the impasse that the novel engages with is not that science dismisses human nature; in fact, science embraces the concept of a creatural, evolutionary existence. The novel engages with the dilemma
that in a technoscientific society, ecological theories are handmaidens
to new forms of Social-Darwinism (see Ross 1994: 246-73). Man is a
wolf to man especially since there are no real wolves anymore. Nor
LVWKHUHDQ\QDWXUH only genetically improved species and pools of
DNA. Scientists and the general public argue for the greater common
JRRG DQG DFFHSW WKHLU HVWUDQJHPHQW IURP QDWXUH IRU WKH VDNH RI D
QDWXUHFXOWXUHWKDWLVVLPLODUO\UHGLQWRRWKDQGFODZ7HFKQRVFLHQFH
WKHUHIRUHVXFFHVVIXOO\PHUJHVQDWXUHDQGFXOWXUHLQWRDXELTXLWRXV
singularity of human arrogance while the roles of the humanities and
the arts has been reduced to nostalgically adhering to humanist values
the standards of which its proponents cannot live up to. The human
race has evolved, and it has left behind humanism, whimpering and
RXWZRUQ :K\ DP , RQ WKLV HDUWK, Jimmy/Snowman cries after the
DSRFDO\SVH +RZ FRPH ,P DORQH" :KHUHV P\ %ULGH RI )UDQNHnVWHLQ" (OaC 169; for the role of the Frankenstein myth in this context, see Staels 2006). ,QGHHG WKH KXPDQ EHLQJ LQ WKH KXmanist
sense is an outdated, freakish remainder of the old days, and
-LPP\6QRZPDQV HVWUDQJHPHQW LV WKXV HIIHFWLYHO\ FRQWUDVWHG ZLWK
the new, posthuman hominids known as the Crakers.
12
-LPP\VREMHFWLRQWKDWWKHUHDUHIHPDOHDUWists too, is dryly dismissed by Crake:

)HPDOHDUWLVWVDUHELRORJLFDOO\FRQIXVHGOaC 168). Explanatory contradictions
of this kind point to the fact that the very dichotomy at stake is mistaken. Glenn
DQG-LPP\VSDVWLPHRISOD\LQJBlood and Roses also exemplifies this. In this
FRPSXWHU JDPH RQH VLGH SOD\HG ZLWK KXPDQ DWURFLWLHV >@ RQ D ODUJH VFDOH
individual UDSHV DQG PXUGHUV GLGQW FRXQW, ZKLOH WKH RWKHU VLGH SOD\HG ZLWK
achievements. Artworks, scientific breakthroughs, stellar works of architecture,
helpful inventions (78-9). Such a crude kind of moral arithmetic emphasises its
own absurdity.
234
7KH &UDNHUV DUH D JHQHWLFDOO\ HQJLQHHUHG LPSURYHG YHUVLRQ RI

the human being, lacking aggression and desire, unfamiliar with clothing and the general idea of culture, and designed in terms of a preLapsarian conception of beauty, innocence and peace. With the creation of the Crakers, Glenn/Crake sought to end the evolutionary and
socio-cultural struggles of humanity by presenting a perfected humanoid species with the help of a perfected science. By ultimately achieving the human dream of becoming a creator, he also brought about his
own deification. 13 The Crakers worship both Oryx and Crake (and
eventually, Snowman too), and as the story proceeds, readers become
aware of the fact that Glenn/Crake was wrong in presuming to have
IRXQGWKHSHUIHFWVSHFLHV3HUIHFWLRQIRU*OHQQ&UDNHLPSOLHVVWability, and he, arguably, forgot about the processes of adaptation and
evolution. Because the Crakers do evolve. Glenn/Crake thinks he has
erased the urge for cultural production, song and symbolism together
with the idea of religious belief and social hierarchies, but, already at a
very early stage and still supervised by Glenn/Crake and Oryx, an
unforeseen event occurs:
'R WKH\ HYHU DVN ZKHUH WKH\ FDPH IURP" VDLG -LPP\ >@. <RX GRQW JHW LW
said Crake, in his you-are-a-PRURQYRLFH7KDWVWXII
VEHHQHGLWHGRXW:HOODctually, they did ask,VDLG2U\[7RGD\WKH\DVNHGZKRPDGHWKHP$QG"$QG
,WROGWKHPWKHWUXWK,VDLGLWZDV&UDNH (OaC 311)
It is here already that readers understand Glenn/Crake had been

wrong to think that he, or science, could ever be able to control nature
in fact, the development inherent in evolution does not stop at a
seemingly perfect creation but goes on, and these processes are under
QR RQHV FRQWURO. Neither ecological (nRU ELRORJLFDO V\VWHPV QRU
cultural systems (such as ethics) are ever stable and perfect but are in
constant flux. An ethics that considers the natural or cultural environment must be flexible and do without rationalistic perfectionism; the
moment in which it is finalised is the moment in which it turns into
ideology or suppression. The danger of becoming ideological and
suppressive, however, is thus not restricted to the sciences; culturalism
and moralism, green or otherwise, can likewise lead to such forms of
oppressive rigidity.
13
The religious subtext in Oryx and Crake is remarkably strong. Even the title
can be read as a reference to WKHELEOLFDOVWRU\RI *HQHVLV$GDPDQG(YHDV
Lacie Semenovich notes (quoted in Crane 2009: 242).
This is shown when the Crakers develop a social structure with a

leader-like figure (see 155) and develop a system of religious belief,
VRPHWKLQJ &UDNH GLGQW DQWLFLSDWH WKH\UH FRQYHUVLQJ ZLWK WKH LnvisibOH WKH\YH GHYHORSHG UHYHUHQFH (157). Although Jimmy/
Snowman realises these developments are happening, it is not until
after his return from the debris of the compound at the end of the
novel that he realises his own involvement in these processes:
7KH\UHVLWWLQJLQDVHPL-circle around a grotesque-looking figure, a scarecrowlike
effigy. All their attention is focused on it [...]. Ohhh, croon the women. Mun, the
men intone. Is that Amen">@1RZWKH\YHVHHQKLP7KH\VFUDPEOHWRWKHLUIHHW
hurry to greet him [...]. This is more energy than they usually display about anyWKLQJ>@:HNQHZZHFRXOGFDOO\RXDQG\RXZRXOGKHDUXVDQGFRPHEDFN
Not Amen, then. Snowman. (OaC 360-1)
Being aQHPSLULFDO-historical GRXEOHW14 neither god-like as Crake is

nor posthuman as the Crakers are, Jimmy/Snowman has introduced
metaphysics to the world of the Crakers. The text thus stresses the
religious impact of Jimmy/SnowPDQVEHKDYLRXU and therefore the
share of his humanist morals by means of various devices, the most
interesting one being the intertextual references.
%HFDXVHRILWVFUHDWRUVLQLWLDOKXEULVWKHSODQWZKHUHWKH&UDNHUV
and BlyssPluss was devised is named 3DUDGLFH3DUDGLFHRI course
invites all kinds of intertextual speculation. 15 But it is not until
Jimmy/Snowman has to lead the Crakers out of the debris of Paradice,
however, that the real significance of this name emerges.
Jimmy/Snowman had promised to look after the Crakers when
Glenn/Crake destroyed mankind, and apparently, he appears to them
as an angelic mouthpiece of Crake. Numerous religious tropes are
used in his conversations with the Crakers, for instance when
Jimmy/Snowman tries to get around the problem of explaining to the
Crakers what Crake looked like by coming up with the idea of saying
WKDW he was in a bush. $ EXUQLQJ EXVK ZK\ QRW" (359, emphasis
orig.). And eventually, Jimmy/Snowman realises that he has to lead
14
15
This is how Foucault describes the human subject in /2UGUHGXGLVFRXUV(1970;

see Foucault 1971a: 384). The closeness to Foucauldian thinking is deliberate, I
would argue, and it LVVWUHVVHGE\WKHQRYHOVFRQFOXGLQJLPDJHRIDfootprint in
the sand See below.
Most notably, it combines the Miltonic tone of eschatological narrative with the
XELTXLWRXVQHRORJLVPV1RWHKRZWKHQHZVXIIL[-GLFHDOVRHFKRHVDGHWHUPLQLstic alea iacta est.
236
WKH &UDNers out of Paradice (351). It is not Glenn/Crake but

Jimmy/Snowman who ultimately takes on the role of Moses, Lucifer
and the angelic herald of transcendence at the same time. Thus, it is
Jimmy/Snowman who becomes the mythic centre around which the
Crakers develop their metaphysical system.
The text suggests that metaphysical speculation and the production
of art are indebted to a human trait that even science cannot erase
that is, it marks human nature. Paradoxically, however, the text seems
to argue for a concept of common and shared humanity while at the
same time commenting on the (ethical) problems of this idea. It is
Jimmy/Snowman who provides the Crakers with a mythology of their
own and who satisfies their desire for story-telling.
-LPP\6QRZPDQVOLWHUDU\HGXFDWLRQDQGKLVKXPDQLVPare therefore
as complicit with the possible downfall of the Crakers as
*OHQQ&UDNHV VFLHQWLILF KXEULV GHVSLWH KXPDQ LQIOXHQFH HYROXWLRQ,
and thus nature, take their course, and neither the humanities nor science is unaffected by this. In fact, they accelerate the development.
$FFRUGLQJO\LWLVRQHRIWKHPDQ\YRLFHVLQ-LPP\6QRZPDQVKHDG
that transforms humanist hope into an inhumane and disastrous urge
of the human mind, and only by dint of orthographic variation:
Paradice is lost WKLV LQQHU YRLFe at one time recounts and transforms WKH0LOWRQLFSKUDVHbut you have a Paradice within you, happier far (OaC 308; emphasis orig.).16 This slogan hybridises science
and art and connects hope and discomforting prolepsis. Contrary to
the assumption that technology and science mostly brought about the
environmental crisis, the text suggests that literature and art do play a
similarly fatal role in this process. Only if we understand this and do
not hide behind hollow humanist phrases as Jimmy/Snowman does
will we be able to begin to comprehend this crisis as a crisis that is
ERWKHFRDQGHJR
The scientific nightmare that Oryx and Crake emplots is at
least partially influenced by (deep-)ecological stances towards overpopulation and evolutionary processes. Yet the humanities are likewise complicit as they have become obsolete and cannot oppose this
16
The rephrasing and modification of culturally significant phrases occurs frequently in Oryx and Crake. &RQWUDU\WR-LPP\6QRZPDQVQRVWDOJLFDWWLWXGHWRZRUGV
Crake most notably on his fridge GHYHORSPHQWVODQJXDJHFRQVWDQWO\,think,
WKHUHIRUH,VSDP7KHSURSHUVWXG\RI0DQNLQGLV(YHU\WKLQJDQGODWHU
,WKLQNWKHUHIRUHDQG7RVWD\KXPDQLVWREUHDNDOLPLWDWLRQ (301).
fundamental development. In a derelict apartment, Jimmy/Snowman

ILQGVDVKHOIZLWKUHIHUHQFHERRNV a dictionary, a thesaurus, a BartOHWWVWKHNorton Anthology of Modern Poetry (233; emphasis orig.).
HHLQVWDQWO\FRQFOXGHVWKDWWKHIRUPHURZQHUPXVWKDYHEHHQDZRUG
person, [...] an ideological plumber, a spin doctor, a hair-splitter for
hire (233). If the humanities have become that ethically obsolete, to
speak of humanism would no longer be possible lest one resorts to a
superficial nostalgia for verbal flamboyance and simulacra of art.
The problematic status of humanism, art and the humanities is underscored through the figure of Oryx. Her very name already hints at
WKH FKDUDFWHUV role in a setting of personal relations and emotional
connections. Her true name is never revealed to Jimmy, who has a
keen interest in her past, and readers only learn that she was called
SuSu once. But that was at a time when she was controlled by a trader
of child slaves. The act of naming is connected to the question of control and subjugation 2U\[s whole character, and her historical and
emotional elusiveness in particular, reflect this. To Jimmy, who tries
to trace her past and connect her stories with the images he thinks he
saw RIKHURQWKHLQWHUQHWVKHRQHGD\UHSOLHV,EHW\RXVDZPRUH
>SLFWXUHVWKDQWKHRQH@ZLWKPHLQ<RXGRQWUHPHPEHU,FRXOGORRN
different, I could wear different clothes and wigs, I could be someone
else, do other things (OaC 139). Adding to the complexity of humanist-technoscientific enmeshments, the text thus connects environmentalist and humanist discourses with the idea of colonial subjugation.
Oryx is repeatedly othered. Her pseudonym is the only Latin one, and
it thus links to Linnean taxonomy as well as to the exoticism of the
gazelle that it denotes (Oryx beisa$V&UDQHDUJXHV>W@KHDVVRFLaWLRQZLWKDJD]HOOHHYRNHVTXDOLWLHVRIVSHHGDQGJUDFHDQGKHUQDPH
bestows her with an added dimension of estrangement, or exoticism
(Crane 2009: 264).
Oryx seems to represent a whole range of subaltern characteristics,
and the story she tells about her childhood in a remote village from
which she was sold and traded, first as a worker and then as a sex
slave, clearly recounts the fate (and clich) of numerous children in
WKH7KLUG:RUOG,WLVUHPDUNDEOHLQWKis context that Oryx adamantly
refuses to tell her story, that is, to speak in a way that Jimmy wants
her to speak; she even refuses common patterns of feeling, and until
WKH HQG KHU FKDUDFWHU UHPDLQV HOXVLYH 6RPHWLPes he felt that her
entire past, Jimmy realises at WKHHQGZDVKLVRZQLQYHQWLRQ (OaC
316). 7KXV VKH EHFRPHV DQ LGHDOLVHG ILJXUH LQ 6QRZPDQV PHPRU\
238
DIWHUWKHDSRFDO\SVHDQG6QRZPDQZRQGHUV+RZORQJKDGLWWDNHQ
WRSLHFHKHUWRJHWKHUIURPWKHVOLYHUVRIKHUKHGJDWKHUHGDQGKRDUGHG
VRFDUHIXOO\" (114).
That Jimmy/Snowman partially makes up this idealised character,
or at least tries to urge her into narrative patterns Oryx is eager to resist, can be read in light of the eco-critical elements discussed above,
as numerous narrative parallels suggest. One example is the motif of
the watch. The slave trader who XVHG WR YLVLW 2U\[s village would
KROGKLVVKLQ\ZDWFKXSWRKLVHDUDQGLWZRXOGWHOOKLP>ZKHUHWKH
children were], because there was a little voice inside it that knew
everything (OaC 128). This strategy is remarkably close to SnowmanV ZD\ RI WDONLQJ WR WKH &UDNHUV 6QRZPDQ UHJXODUO\ FODLPV WR
VSHDN ZLWK &UDNHV DXWKRULW\ -XVW D PLQXWH ,OO DVN &UDNH +H
holds his watch up to the sky, turns it around on his wrist, then puts it
to his ear as if listening to it. They follow each motion, enthralled (9).
The text does not tell explicitly whether Snowman purposely adopted
this behaviour; in any case, the parallel of (colonial?) subjugation and
6QRZPDQVUROHDVWKHNHHSHURIDTXHVWLRQDEOHNQRZOHGJHDQGKHUitage is remarkable. Eventually, his erudite quotations and humanist
stances become intermingled and, thus, complicit with the degradations that followed the Western culture of colonial expansion. Quoting
from Kurt VonnegutV Slaughterhouse Five (without actually referencing the quotation), he thinks about his life with the Crakers:
It is the strict adherence to daily routine that tends towards the maintenance of
good morale and the preservation of sanity, he says out loud. He has the feeling
KHV TXRWLQJ IURP D ERRN VRPH REVROHWH SRQGHURXV GLUHFWLYH ZULWWHQ LQ DLG RI
European colonials running plantations of one kind or another. [...] They would
have been told to wear solar topis, dress for dinner, refrain from raping the naWLYHV,WZRXOGQWKDYHVDLGraping. Refrain from fraternizing with the female inhabitants. (5)
Fine linguistic distinctions begin to lose their sharpness as all of

6QRZPDQVPHPRUies become more and more blurred, causing colonialism, humanism and environmentalism to intermingle. While they
UHLWHUDWHWKH :HVW-versus-UHVW GLFKRWRP\ -LPP\6QRZPDQV ZRUGV
blend orientalism, humanism and cultural nostalgia and allude to the
IDFW WKDW 6QRZPDQVWHOOLQJ RI WKH VWRU\ LVLQLWVHOID PHFKDQism of
RUGHU, as Crane states (2009: 261). This order, and the imposition of
RUGHU VKH DUJXHV LV RQH RI WKH NH\ SURMHFWV RI FRORQLVDWLRQ LI QRW
civilisation (260). Crane refers to the connection between humanist
ideology and colonial oppression, and I second her reading of

-LPP\6QRZPDQVQDUUDWLYHHQGHDYRXUVDQGFODLPWKDWWKLVGLVFXUVLYH
bricolage becomes the crucial literary experience. Its critical potential
is underscored because WKH VWRU\ LV WROG IURP 6QRZPDQV SRLQW RI
view, which insecurely shLIWVEHWZHHQQRZDQGWKHQXQWLOWKDWYHU\
distinction becomes unintelligible to him.
As argued above, the shallowness of -LPP\6QRZPDQV humanism
is exemplified by his attempts to remain sane after the apocalypse
for example, he recalls beautiful words: Valance. Norn. Serendipity.
Pibroch. Lubricious (68; emphasis orig.). Crane pithily concludes
WKDW -LPP\6QRZPDQ LV DUJXDEO\ PRUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH VORZ
death of the English language than that of the species he is (or was)
VXUURXQGHG E\ 2009: 261). But Jimmy/Snowman does not actually
save or rehearse any high-cultural remnants; instead, the traces of a
once vivid cultural production survive only as useless and meaningless lists of words. When he recalls his experience of listening to
internet aUWLVW $QQD .V UHFLWDWLRQV RI 6KDNHVSHDUHV Macbeth, his
memories are condensed to significant words that we as readers may
understand as being related to the play but the other characters in the
book may no longer be able to 7KLQN RI WKH ZRUGV,
Jimmy6QRZPDQ VD\V Sere, for instance. Incarnadine 7R ZKLFK
*OHQQ&UDNHUHSOLHV:KDWLVWKLVVKLW">@&KDQQHOFKDQJH (OaC
85; emphasis orig.).
Instead of an old-fashioned humanism, Jimmy/Snowman has only
an empty postmodern pastiche of traces of cultural memory. One day,
recalling once again VRPH>U@DJHQGVRIODQJXDJH>@IORDWLQJLQKLV
head: mephitic, metronome, mastitis, metatarsal, maudlin KH UHDlLVHVI used to be erudite [...].Erudite. A hopeless word. What are
all those things he oncHWKRXJKWKHNQHZDQGZKHUHKDYHWKH\JRQH"
(148; emphasis orig.). In the postmodern world of simulacra that is
presented in the story line before the apocalypse and in the postnatural, posthuman world that follows it, when irony is virtuDOO\ORVWRQ
the trees (162; see also Glover 2009: 59), words are handmaidens to
the technoscientific hegemony and language has lost its force or so it
seems.
*****
Oryx and Crake presents a necessary but painful critique as it illuminates the complicity of art and culture in the crisis of the environment.
240
$WZRRGV The Year of the Flood further comments on this bleak vision by adding to the narrative discourse delivered by
Jimmy/Snowman a number of other voices and focalisers who also
survived the apocalyptic events. Thus, the sequel opposes
-LPP\6QRZPDQVEOHDNQDUUDWLYHRISHUVRQDOGLVVROXWLRQwith DGiversity of individual voices, artistically organized (Bakhtin 1981:
262). In that it presents a dialogical account of the apocalyptic events,
it opposes the shallowness of the forPHUQRYHOVKXPDQLVP and questions the reductive technoscientific reality of the postnatural world
where everything has a price but nothing has any value. It thus emplots a form of narrative identity that successfully reacts to environmental crisis and adapts to or controverts the uniformity it is confronted with. The same effect can already be found in Oryx and
Crake, however. Its dystopian alarmism is in fact an actual DOODUPH
a call to arms in the form of ecocritique. By means of a dystopian
visionWKHWH[WHQJHQGHUVDVHQVHRIQRW\HW while at the same time
questioning the temporal concepts underlying the idea of urgency and
negative progress.
Atwood emphatically explains in her acknowledgements in The
Year of the Flood that WKHJHQHUDOWHQGHQFLHVDQGPDQ\RIWKHGHWDLOV
[in her fiction] are alarmingly close to fact (TYotF 433). The novelistic form, she suggests, does not invent scientific visions but plays with
what is already there.17 One of the first genetically modified animals
PHQWLRQHGLQWKHWH[WLVWKH0HWKXVDODK0RXVHDQGLWLVHDV\WRDVVoFLDWH LW ZLWKWKH DOUHDG\ H[LVWLQJ NQRFNRXW-PLFH, which are already
used for experiments. One of the computer games played by
-LPP\6QRZPDQ DQG *OHQQ&UDNH LV FDOOHG .ZLNWLPH 2VDPD LQ
ZKLFK-LPP\6QRZPDQ FRXOGVRPHWLPHV ZLQ>@ DV ORQJ Ds Crake
played the Infidel side (OaC 40). Another example is that
Glenn/Crake is able to pursue his scientific research under the pretence of working on programming the human genetic sequence so as
to enable parents (or WKH FRPSDQ\ to create totally chosen babies
(OaC 304). Indeed, these images serve as a connection between a
17
$WZRRGV LQVLVWHQFH WKDW VKH GRHV QRW ZULWH ZRUNs of science-fiction but rather
QRYHOV RI VSHFXODWLYH ILFWLRQ XQGHUVFRUHV the fact that her fiction is a literary
ZKDW LI of existing technologies and knowledge and points to her interest
in realism and probabLOLW\ /LNH 7KH +DQGPDLGV 7DOH, Oryx and Crake is a
speculative fiction, not a science fiction proper. >@[I]t invents nothing that we
KDYHQWDOUHDG\LQYHQWHG or DUH EHJLQQLQJ WR LQYHQW $WZRRG QS For a
critical assessment of this claim, see also LeGuin (2009) and Watts (2003).
readerly QRZ DQG a fictional WKHQ and ultimately deconstruct the

divide.
7KLV GHFRQVWUXFWLRQ LV UHIOHFWHG E\ WKHQRYHOV chronotope, which
underlines the impression of uniformity in Oryx and Crake. Both in
the pre- and post-apocalyptic narratives, the novel stages
-LPP\6QRZPDQV PRYHPHQW WRZDUGV WKH 5HMRRYHQ(VHQVH &Rmpound first to take employment there and later to gather some food
and medicine for survival. By this doubling the movement towards
3DUDGLFHDVZHOODVE\YLUWXHRIWKHEURNHQOLQHRIWKRXJKWVWKURXJK
which readers learn about the catastrophic events, the text presents a
repetitive pattern that seemingly contradicts the apocalyptic claims of
transhistorical singularity. In fact, the text suggests by this structure as
ZHOODVE\SUHVHQWLQJWKH&UDNHUVHYROXWLRQDU\GHYHORSPHQWthat history is about to repeat itself already+LVWRU\LVVKRZQWREHRQO\D
human attempt at documenting and understanding the ongoing process
of evolution.
This is astounding because nature seems to have been abolished in
a postnatural environment; it seems to be unrecognisable and too thoroughly altered to be of any significance. It moreover seems that the
QDWXUDOHOHPHQWVKDYHEHHQFRPPRGLILHGor reduced to the status of
waste7KLVVKRZVLQ2U\[s H[SODQDWLRQWKDW>W@KHULYHUVDUHVRXVeful, for the garbage and the dead people and the babies that get thrown
away, and the shit (OaC 135). Here, the novel presents a stance towards natural elements that Cynthia Deitering claims to be typical of
the postnatural novel: since the novels at the turn of the twentieth cenWXU\ PLUURU D VKLIt in our cultural identity a shift from a culture
defined by its production to a culture defined by its waste (1996:
196), WH[WV WKDW FULWLFDOO\ HQJDJH ZLWK WKLV VKLIW GHSLFW WKH rHDO VKH
DUJXHVQRWDVWKHVWDQGLQJ-reserve but as the already used-up (202).
Oryx and Crake presents VXFKDFRPPRGLILHGUHDOZRUOGZKLFK
as a FRQVHTXHQFHKDVORVWLWVQDWXUDOTXDOLWLHVDQGWKXVLWVUHDOLW\18
18
These issues can also be related to the discourse formation that Lawrence Buell
calls WR[LF GLVFRXUVH %XHOO -45). Not unlike Hubert Zapf, who deVFULEHVOLWHUDU\HFRORJ\DVDSRVW-SRVWVWUXFWXUDOLVWDSSURDFK%XHOOVHHNVWR find a
ZD\ RI LPDJLQLQJ SK\VLFDO HQYLURQPHQts that [fuse] social constructivist with
HQYLURQPHQWDOUHVWRUDWLRQLVWSHUVSHFWLYHV%\HQJDJLQJZLWKWURSHVVXFKDV
WKH EHWUD\HG SDVWRUDO WR[LF GLVFRXUVH HQJHQGHUV WKH VHQVH RI the inextricability of world and text for which I have been arguing in the previous chapters.
6HH DOVR 3DXO )DUOH\ DQG 0LFKDHO 6\PPRQV 5REHUWV ZRUN RQ (GJHODQGV
242
At the same time, however, the novel presents a longing for the natural which has been transferred to urban environments. The pleeblands,
that is, the lower-class suburbs outside of the gated communities of
WKHFRPSRXQGVDUHGHVFULEHGDVDOPRVWVXEOLPHQDWXUDODUHDV(YHUything in the pleeblands seemed so boundless, so porous, so penetrable,
so wide-open. So subject to chance (OaC 196). Creating a tension
between a descriptive rhetoric that is informed by a longing for nature,
and the reality of fragmented identities and postnatural environments,
the novel illustrates the mismatch of a (post-)natural world under conWURODQGWKHKXPDQVWUXJJOHZLWKQDWXUHVVXEOLPLW\DQGEHDXW\
In the evening [Snowman] watches the sunset, through the narrow slit of the tower
window. How glorious it must have been when all ten of the videocam screens
were on and you could get the full panoramic view, turn up the colour brightness,
enhance the red tones. [...] As it is the screens turn their blind eyes towards him,
so he has to make do with the real thing. (OaC 276)
Ursula Heise describes LQKRZIDUDQHQYLURQPHQWDOLVWBlue Planet

perVSHFWLYH which HQDEOHVXVWRVHHthe entire planet at one glance
and perceive it as a shared whole without conflicting histories or culturesUHOLHVRQWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQRIDGYDQFHGWHFKQRORJ\ (2008: 37).
The passage above suggests that in the postnatural environment of
Oryx and Crake, the dependence on technology has increased to a
degree that prevents even local phenomena of nature from being intelligible without technical gadgets. But, contrary to the charactersreliance on technological means to comprehend nature, the text also suggests a common sense notion of cyclical, natural time: the seasons.
Here, and even more so in the sequel, Atwood stresses the role of
time, both as a human means of perception, which allows us to understand the QHHGIRULQGLYLGXDODFWLRQEHIRUHLWLVWRRODWH, and in terms
of a deep-ecological time, which is measured in timeframes of evolutionary developments rather than individual lives.
Not only the plot construction but also the repetition of particular
phrases enhances the impression of cyclicity for example, when
6QRZPDQZDNHVEHIRUHGDZQ+HOLHVXQPRYLQJOLVWHQLQJWRWKHWLGH
coming in. [...] [W]ish-ZDVKWKHUK\WKPRIKHDUWEHDW (OaC 3; 371);
this is mentioned twice in the text. The analogy of waves and heartbeat suggests the embeddedness of human experience in the natural
environment. Moreover, it indicates that the moments in which the
human protagonist can listen to the environment come and go, and his
pondering upon the course of the world connects with the problem of
WLPHDQGWHOHRORJ\LWVHOI>6QRZPDQ@GRHVQWNQRZZKLFKLVZRUVHD
SDVWKHFDQWUHJDLQRUDSUHVHQWWKDWZLOOGHVWUR\KLPLIKHORRNVDWLW
WRR FOHDUO\ 7KHQ WKHUHV WKH IXWXUH 6KHHU YHUWLJR (OaC 147). It is
exactly this vertigo WKDW WKH QRYHOV XQVWDEOH WHPSRUDO FRQVWUXFWLRQ
stages so impressively. By drawing the reader into a mode of perceiving the postnatural, man-PDGH HQG RIWLPH ZKLFKLV UHSHDWHGO\ Ueflected by the motif of the useless watch and iWVEODQNIDFH>@]HUo
hour (3), Oryx and Crake enables its readers to feel with Snowman
WKHMROWVRIWHUURU>@WKLVDEVHQFHRI official time (3). Simultaneously, the absence of time is contrasted with the ongoing processes of
evolution and the natural timeframe of the seasons, and it is thus that
WKHZKDWLIRIG\VWRSLDQVSHFXODWLRQLVMX[WDSRVHGZLWKDQHFRFHQWULF
QRW-\HW The novel ends accordingly )URP KDELW >6QRZPDQ@ OLIWV
his watch; it shows him its blank face. Zero hour, Snowman thinks.
7LPHWRJR (374).
Like The Heart of Redness, Oryx and Crake creates a tension beWZHHQSURJUHVVDQGUHSHWLWLRQDQGVXJJHVWVDUHWXUQWRQDWXUHWKURXJK
the experience of natural time frames such as the seasons. Human
time, metonymically standing for the oppressive rationalism of technoscientific civilisation, must be overcome. While the novel thus repeatedly suggests forms of diversity and circular frames of perception,
it contrasts these elements with uniformity and reduction. As Garrard
notes, the ongoing rationalisation of the postnatural world is formally
presented in terms of a perceptive neoteny TKLV QHRWHQ\ EUHHGV
neologism, just as gene-splices breed compound nouns like pigoon,
UDNXQJ ZROYRJ DQG VSRDWJLGHU (Garrard 2010c: 238). While the
animal world is being renamed, so too the cultural world; reduced to
virtual reality and advertisements, it KDV EHFRPH D ZRUOG RI +DppicupSXFKLQR DQG 6R\2%R\%XUJHUV JXDUGHG E\ &RUSV(&RUSV.
Uniformity, as it were, is the name of the game of the postnatural
dystopia, and its effects on both nature and culture can be seen in the
abolishment of the very distinction between the two.19
This forced reduction towards singularity, a ruthless hybridisation
that ultimately means an end of history just as it tends towards palin19
Comparable naturalcultural and technoscientific developments can be found in the

UHDO ZRUG with a quick Google search. For instance, there exists an American
firm that spraypaints dried lawn in areas affected by climate change. Its name
*UDVV%*UHHQ UHVHPEOHV WKH QDPLQJ SDWWHUQ LQ $WZRRGV WH[WDQG DGGV WR WKH
finding discussed above that the text works only with phenomena that are known
to the readership already.
244
dromes sXFK DV 0DGG$GGDP, echoes the uncanny universality ascribed to science and progress. By creating self-sufficient, closed systems, the cultural environment is both detached from and adjusted to
nature. While the world-as-text is presented in The Hungry Tide
through a doubling of perspectives in order to illustrate the potential
for understanding, all perspectives have been forcefully and absolutely
merged in Oryx and Crake, leaving only a fragmented and lonely
consciousness in the form of narrative voice. Even the chapter titles
present themselves to the reader as a strict reduction to WKHFKDSWHUV
respective contents WLWOHV VXFK DV 0DQJR, 7RDVW, DQG +\SoWKHWLFDOGRSUHVHQWWKHFKDSWHUVFUXFLDOPRWLIVEXWWKH\DUHE\WKHmselves incomprehensible. ,QGLYLGXDOLW\ HW\PRORJLFDOO\ WKH XQGividable, has turned out to be a nightmare in a world that is absolutely
unified, both naturally and culturally. Perhaps the bleakest instance of
such oneness, however, is staged in a passage in which
Jimmy/Snowman masturbates, thinking of Oryx. Just as all events are
described through his focalising perspective, the very idea of togetherness is denied in this scene:
6RPHWLPHVKHFDQFRQMXUHKHUXS$WILUVWVKHVSDOHDQGVKDGRZ\EXWLIKHFDQ
say her name over and RYHUWKHQPD\EHVKHOOJOLGHLQWRKLVERG\DQGEHSUHVHQW
ZLWK KLP LQ KLV IOHVK DQG KLV KDQG RQ KLPVHOI ZLOO EHFRPH KHU KDQG %XW VKHV
always been evasive, you can never pin her down. Tonight she fails to materialize
and he is left alone, whimpering ridiculously, jerking off all by himself in the
dark. (OaC 110)
All of the elements discussed above recur in this scene: the reduction
of personal contact to sexual excitement, the desire to occupy and be
RFFXSLHGE\DQRWKHUVERG\DQGWKHHYDVLYHQHVVRIWKe other, namely
Oryx.
However, this bleakness is repeatedly, though critically, balanced
E\ WKH QRYHOV FRQVWDQW QHJRWLDWLRQ RI WKH WDVN RI WHOOLQJ VWRULHV
Jimmy/Snowman realises that he is a postnatural Robinson Crusoe
DQG H[SODLQV WKDW KH LV D FDVWDZDy of sorts. He could make lists. It
could give his life some structure. But even a castaway assumes a
future reader (41). His attempts at narrating for the Crakers fail,
KRZHYHUDVWKH\DUHQRWFDSDEOHRIIROORZLQJKXPDQQDUUDWLYHDQG
this suggests that if there is any future reader, it is the reader of the
novel.20 By thus transcending the diegetic frame of the narrative, Oryx

and Crake once again complicates its temporal dimensions WKHIuWXUH EHFRPHV QRZ DV ZH UHDG -LPP\6QRZPDQV VWRU\ /LNH WKH
other texts discussed so far, Oryx and Crake, too, establishes the potenWLDORIDGLHJHWLFOHDS (see Bergthaller 2006: 167), and it does so
by referring the future dystopia to the contemporary reader-addressee.
While the text in numerous instances stresses the fact that its dystopian vision is informed by the contemporary world, Jimmy/Snowman,
WRRJORRPLO\FODLPVWKDW>D@Q\UHDGHUKHFDQSRVsibly imagine is in
the past (OaC 41). The recitation of Shakespearian words, discussed
above, exemplifies this diegetic leap because we understand the references Jimmy/Snowman and his contemporaries would fail to grasp.
With a good sense of discomfort, we thus understand the novel as a
story set in our future, which makes us those readers in the past. Crake
has realised that for civilisation to end, >D@OOLWWDNHV>@LVWKHHOLPination of one generation (223), and Jimmy/Snowman narrates in
order to fight this elimination for us.
Thus, and without dismissing the criticism of the role of the humanities and the arts, the text makes a strong point for the importance
of narratives. By establishing the actual readership as
-LPP\6QRZPDQV DXGLHQFH WKH G\VWRSLDQ component of his narrative is turned into one of taking action, if only in terms of actively
listening to and thinking about the stories we hear. While the meaning
of literature and the arts has eroded in the fictional world of Oryx and
Crake, the intertextual and generic references can be understood by
actual readers, who in turn are forced to make sense of them and grasp
WKHWUXWKEHKLQGWKHVWRU\
*****
In that it stages oneness as a trope of impending danger and loss, and
by suggesting the power of narrative as a counter-discursive means of
resistance, Oryx and Crake arouses expectations that have to be accommodated to the reading of The Year of the Flood. In Oryx and
Crake-LPP\6QRZPDQVQDUUDWLYHLVSUHFHGHGE\WZRHSLJUDSKV: the
first one from Jonathan Swift and the second one from Virginia
20
In IDFW WKH &UDNHUV DUH DOO-too-KXPDQ LQ WKHLU WUHDWPHQW RI QDUUDWLYH EHFDXVH
they instantly commodify the act of narration $VWRU\LVZKDWWKH\ZDQWLQH[change of eveU\VODXJKWHUHGILVKOaC 102).
246
Woolf. Atwood chose a quotation from GulliverV Travels in which

*XOOLYHU FODLPV WKDW KH FKRVH WR UHODWH SODLQ PDWWHU RI IDFW >@ EeFDXVH >KLV@ SULQFLSDO DLP ZDV WR LQIRUP \RX DQG QRW WR DPXVH \RX
(Swift [1726/1735: book 4, Chapter XII] 2005: 333). This claim can
easily be related to the aim of her dystopian narrative to speculate on
the grounds of scientific fact. The quotation from Woolf is more eluVLYH :DV WKHUH QR VDIHW\" 1R OHDUQLQJ E\ KHDUW RI WKH ZD\V of the
ZRUOG" (Woolf [1927] 2002: 134). Coral Ann Howells claims that by
introducing her narrative with these epigraphs, Atwood deliberately
comments on gender difference, which has a particular significance in
this novel if viewed in the context of her other writings. This gender
GLIIHUHQFH +RZHOOV DUJXHV LV >@ KLJKOLJKWHG LQ WKH FRXQWHUSRLQW
EHWZHHQ *XOOLYHUV HPSKDVLV RQ SODLQ PDWWHU RI IDFW DQG D IHPDOH
DUWLVWV PRUH VSHFXODWLYH YLew of the world (Howells 2006: 170).
However, these distinctions are questioned in the course of her narrative.21 I think it is even more important that they invite readerly interaction with the literary material to which they relate.
-LPP\6QRZPDQVEOHDNUHDOLVDWLRQWKDWDQ\UHDGHUKHFDQSRVVibly
imagine is in the past (OaC 41) and my argument for the deliberate
confusion of the time-frames the novel operates with can thus be read
in the context of a readerly making-sense of intertextual allusions.
:KLOH-LPP\6QRZPDQVZRUOGRIZRUGVGHWHULRUDWHsWKHQRYHOV
readers might understand the value of narration and the constant intertextual references as a solution by which the trope of reduction can be
countered. For instance, the plot and its motifs have been identified as
LQWHUWH[WXDOO\FRQQHFWHGWR0DU\6KHOOH\VFrankenstein in a way that
WKH\ HFKR LWV discursive myth 0F&XWFKHRQ 2VERUQH .
Thus, literary echoes that provide for a diversity of narrative voices
challenge the very reduction the postnatural world promotes. Mark
McCutcheon likewise notes tKDWWKHGRXEOLQJRI6KHOOH\VVWRULHVLQ
$WZRRGV SORWV UHIOHFWV D GRXEOLQJ SDWWHUQ ZH DOVR ILQG LQ its other
narrative strategies (2010: 217).
On the surface level of the narrative, the tension arising out of the
doubling strategy is focused through JiPP\6QRZPDQV QDUUDWLYH
21
Howells argues for this erosion by claiming WKDW ERWKSURWDJRQLVWV >DUH@ male,
which forecloses a hero/villain dichotomy connected with gender stereotypes, and
she states that Atwood suggests WKDW FUHDWLYH LPDJLQDWLRQ LV QRW FRQILQHG WR
artists but shared by scientists, for it is one of the qualities that distinguish human
EHLQJVb: 170). This does not resolve the stereotype of the passive female,
however.
&RPPHQWLQJRQWKHVHHPLQJLPSDVVHRI-LPP\6QRZPDQVUHODWLRnship with narrative traditions, Howells writes

Snowman tells his last stories to himself as he sneaks up on the three unknown
human survivors, rehearsing old plots from narratives of European colonialism
and the Wild West, only to discover that none of them fits his present situation. Is
his role that of a peacemaker, negotiator, killer? He cannot finish the story though
KHNQRZVLWLVTime to go+RZHOOV
That Jimmy/Snowman is indeed incapable of bringing his story to a

closure is a logical consequence of the dissolution of dichotomies, as I
have argued above Moreover, it is clear that if the idea of human identity is rendered obsolete, any placing of the self in a literary or epistemological tradition is impossible. Jimmy/Snowman is in a situation
beyond literary and epistemological tradition. Yet, it is the power of
the readers that continually provides for a literary context. As the
readers integrate Swift and Woolf, but also the quotations from
Shakespeare (which at the end of the novel become meaningless to an
increasingly confused Jimmy/Snowman) into the semantics of the
narrative, they connect intertextual meaning and the dystopian commentary on postnatural environments in general and the dangers of
violent homogenisation in particular.
:ULWLQJ DERXW $WZRRGV HQYLURQPHQWDOO\ RULHQWHG ZRUN IURP WKH
seventies to the turn of the millennium (including Oryx and Crake),
Shannon Hengen concludes WKDW>V@Worytelling, getting the story right,
[is maintained as] another of our basic human needs (2006: 78). How
this trope is worked on in Oryx and Crake, and how its various impliFDWLRQV DUH QHJRWLDWHG WKURXJK WKH WH[WV LQGLYLGXDO IRUP KDV EHHQ
described above. It is especially with narrative voice and focalisation,
and through the ways of staging time and timelessness, that the idea of
a postnatural world and the decline of identity are emplotted. I will
discuss the narrative potential of The Year of the Flood in this context.
$ /DVW PDQ QDUUDWLYH +RZHOOV SRLQWV RXW ZLWK UHJDUG WR Oryx
and Crake,
poses special problems: how to tell that story, who to tell it, and to whom?
Snowman does not tell the story himself in the first person; he is the focalizer, but
his story is refracted through an omniscient narrative voice. (171)
Narrative voice and the staging of time in Oryx and Crake successfully emplot the aporias of a postnatural identity, and it is within The
Year of the Flood that these devices help the UHDGHU get the story
248
right as Hengen suggests. By employing different human narratives

that comment on each other, and by means of a narrative community
that eventually establishes WKH ULJKW VWRU\ SRVWQDWXUDO VXUYLYDO LV
facilitated.
The Year of the Flood tells the story not from another single perspective but from a number of different perspectives, and both figural
narrative and first-person narrative strategies are employed. They are
accompanied by paratextual elements such as song lyrics and sermons
used as epigraphs before the chapters. Adding to this heteroglossia,
the book also explains some of the mysteries of its prequel: while
Oryx and Crake HQGVZLWKWKH)RXFDXOGLDQLPDJHRIDKXPDQIRRtprint [...] in the sand (OaC 372),22 readers of The Year of the Flood
learn that these were the footprints of the girl Amanda and two men
who abused her. The readers are confronted with a number of such
H[SODQDWRU\ DQG WKXV GHP\VWLI\LQJ DFFRXQWV RI WKH FKDUDFWHUV SDVWV
and presents. Moreover, they are provided with more scenes and
events before and after the catastrophe, told from the perspectives of
the two female focalisers, Toby and Ren, and supplemented by the
VHUPRQV RI $GDP 2QH ZKR LV WKH OHDGHU RI *RGV *DUGHQHUV
(7KH *RGV *DUGHQHUV DUHD UHOLJious group who had anticipated the
catastropKHZKLFKWKH\UHIHUWRDVWKHZDWHUOHVVIORRG) This move
towards a greater number of perspectives allows for a far greater diaORJLFDOSRWHQWLDOWKDQDPHUHO\GLFKRWRPRXVRUQHRWHQRXVVWUXFWXUH
could have.
The tendency to QHRWHQRXV UHGXFWLRQ LV thus contrasted with a
multiplication of perspectives in the act of narration. It can therefore
easily be read as a textual way of expounding the problem of reduc22
Note that the imagery employed here also points to the question of posthumanism.
0LFKHO )RXFDXOWV DVVHUWLRQ WKDW PDQ LV DQ LQYHQWLRQ RI UHFHQW GDWH $QG RQH
SHUKDSVQHDULQJLWVHQG>] [O]ne can certainly wager that man would be erased,
like a face drawn in sand at the edJHRIWKHVHDKDVEHHQTXRWHGE\&DU\:ROIHDV
one of the deciding points in the genealogy of posthumanist thinking (Foucault
E :ROIH [LL ,W LV PRUHRYHU UHPDUNDEOH WKDW )RXFDXOWV LPDJH
links the emergence of posthumanist connections with associations of extinction,
which clearly play a crucial role in Oryx and Crake. Animal and human fates are
equated through the image of a shared threat of extinction and the title of the
novel provides further commentary on that. As Howells remarkVERWK2U\[DQG
&UDNH DUH GHDG ZKHQ WKH VWRU\ EHJLQV, which can be read with regard to the
UHVSHFWLYH DQLPDOV IDWHs and with regard to the narrative construction of retrospective narration (with two of the three characters having been H[WLQJXLVKHGDW
the time the story is told). See Howells (2006b: 162).
tion in the narrative of Oryx and Crake by opposing it with the heterogeneity of voices present. The perspectives do not merge but complement each other; unlike the merging of genes, names and creatures,
they exist through narration and FDQQRWEHreduced in the same way
that raccoon and skunk have become a rakunk. They therefore stand as
a comment on the dangers and apprehensions contained in the idea of
postnatural existence; but they also engage with the role of narrative
DQG HPSORWPHQW LQWKHFRXQWHULQJ RI ZKDW FDQEH GHVFULEHG DV QHoWHQRXVVWUXFWXUDOSURFHVVHVthat eventually result in the degradation of
identity. In this respect, it is interesting to note that it is not only the
characters in the story who seem to be attuned to story-telling.
+RZHOOV ZRQGHUV ZKHWKHU WKH SULPLWLYH KXPDQ EUDLQ LV KDUG-wired
not just for dreaming and singing as Crake has discovered, but for
QDUUDWLYH DV ZHOO (Howells 2006b: 171). Notably, readers, too, can
experience the emplotment of these processes themselves: as I relate
one novel to the other, I re-create the diegetic world and its diversity.
Moreover, through this dialogic proliferation, crucial dystopian
tropes are reassessed: the problem of time and timelessness, for instance, is mentioned in The Year of the Flood, too, but now, there is an
ironic twist to it. Here, postnatural timelessness is challenged after
Toby and Ren find each other. One morning, Ren wakes up next to
Toby:
The light hits ReQGLUHFWO\DQGKHUH\HVRSHQ2Kshit, oh shit,VKHVD\V,P
late! What time is it? <RXUH QRW ODWH IRU DQ\WKLQJ says Toby, and for some
reason both of them laugh. (TYotF 383)
This scene can be read in direct contrast to the beginning of Oryx and
Crake, featuring a Jimmy/Snowman ZKRwakes before dawn who
is alone, and who slowly loses his mind because of the absence of
time. In the passage above, the two women are together, Ren is hit
directly by the light, and both laugh about the absence of time.
By adding this kind of irony to the narrative, Atwood succeeds in
VWDJLQJ WKH LURQLF LQYHUVLRQ RI G\VWRSLDQ FOLFKpV WKDW 6\OYLD 0D\HU
DUJXHV IRU LQ 7KH 5KHWRULF RI 7R[LF 'LVFRXUVH (2007): Mayer enJDJHV ZLWK 5LFKDUG .HUULGJHV ILQGLQJV WKDW FRQWHPSRUDU\ HFRWKULOOHUVDOOUHO\Rn a plot pattern and on a specific kind of character
GHYHORSPHQW WKDW XOWLPDWHO\ REIXVFDWHV WKH LVVXHV DW VWDNH EHFDXVH
WKHQRYHOVDUHIRUFHGWRZDUGVFORVXUHDQGWKHWH[WVVXJJHVWWKDWDQ\
environmental problem can be solved and that ecological collapse can
250
be averted (quoted in Mayer 2007: 165). She argues that in order to

>DYRLG@ WKH WURSHV RI QDUUDWLYH FORVXUH DQG KHURLF LQGLYLGXDOLVP,
novels can destabilise the temporal and teleological notions of heroism and ironically deconstruct them. These strategies can be found in
The Year of the Flood and they allow for a critical questioning of closure. Most importantly, they question the very moral systems that the
novel presents.
This is apparent in the comicDO ILJXUHV RI WKH *RGV *DUGHQHUV
They are not the environmentalist moral voice of the text but an ironic
remark on moralism and apocalypticism. By their deeds and words,
aQGWKURXJKWKHEDWKRVRIWKHLUK\PQV the Gardeners are shown to
be ridiculous, and by ironically questioning their religious and social
practices, the text allows for a critical re-assessment of overtly headon environmentalist thinking. The actual role of belief remains open
among the Gardeners; in any case, Toby does not actually believe in
WKH*DUGHQHUVGRJPDDQGLWLV$GDP2QHKLPVHOIZKRH[SODLQVWKDW
WKHSKUDVHDVLILVYHU\LPSRUWDQWWRXV>@:HVKRXOG not expect
too much from faith (TYotF 168). So, on the one hand, the Gardeners
can be said to be a moral authority in the completely commodified
world, as they are constantly trying to bring together Christian mythology and scientific knowledge in order to create a modern faith in
creation. On the other hand, however, VXFK DQ HDV\ VROXWLRQ LV Uepeatedly questioned.
The Gardeners are depicted as a group of people who are human,
all-too-human, rather than enlightened in the way they perceive themselves or hope to be perceived: IRU H[DPSOH %XUW7KH .QRELV DcFXVHGRIWRXFKLQJFKLOGUHQDQG$GDP2QHDQGWKHRWKHUAdams and
Eves, while dismissing modern technology, operate via hidden laptops
and other technical gear. When Adam One explains this policy to
7RE\KHVD\VWKDWKHPXVWVRPHWLPHVVD\WKLQJVWKDWDUHQRWWUDQsparently honest. But it is for the greater good (184). By the same
token, Adam One reveals his closeness to the corporations, who also
argue for a supposed greater good. Besides, his use of euphemisms
not transparently honest) shows his strategic thinking. Moreover,
WKH *DUGHQHUV VWDWHPHQWV LQ JHneral adhere to the same postmodern/late-capitalist logic depicted everywhere in this dystopian vision
of society: the slates presented brought to a demonstration through the
pleeblands have on them VORJDQV VXFK DV Animals R Us! (39); and
aside from theiUK\PQV23 WKH*DUGHQHUVUHO\RQVORJDQVVXFKDV,WLV

EHWWHUWRKRSHWKDQWRPRSH (TYotF 90).
Both instances show how strongly commodification, sloganising
and simplification have affected the *DUGHQHUVreligious convictions.
In one remarkable passaJHWKHULWXDOLVHGSROLWLFDOO\FRUUHFWZD\RI
speaking among the Gardeners is shown in its inefficacy and from its
most laughable side: in a meeting of the Adams and Eves, the members are shown to constantly struggle with their habit of using animal
metaphors:
,WVWKH&RUSVEHKLQG>WKHDWWDFNRQWKH*DUGHQ@1RSHLWVSHUVRQDO>@. That
man [Blanco] is mean as a snake, no disrespect to Snakes, and he was after Toby,
LVDOO>@:HVKRXOGKDYHOHWVOHHSLQJGRJVOLH'RJVLVULJKW,VDLGRebecca.
1RGLVUHVSHFWWR'RJV>@:KDWZDVRXUFKRLFH"VDLG=HE/HWWKHPVTXDVK
us like bugs? Not that we squash bugs,KHDGGHG (256-7)
However, even though the ways of the Gardeners seems to be ridiculous and, at times, downright corrupt and dishonest, their belief
and their narrative engagement with the world provide comfort even
for those with a fickle belief. This shows again in the motif of time. In
stark contrasWWR-LPP\Vzero hour 7RE\UHPHPEHUV$GDP2QHV
claim:
While the Flood rages, you must count the days [...] because to everything there is
a season. On your Meditations, do not travel so far on your inner journeys that
you enter the Timeless before it is time. (TYotF 163)
Although not without problems, the belief in something (here epitoPLVHGE\QDWXUH and the refusal to accept the postmodern nihilism
predominant in the world of Oryx and Crake are shown to allow for
thinking about new ways of living. Accordingly, the chapter titles in
The Year of the Flood do not correspond to the reduced and meaningless words that are used in Oryx and Crake; instead, they are maned
ZLWKUHJDUGWRWKH*DUGHQHUVRUJDQLVDWLRQRIWKH\HDULQWHUPVRIIHstivities in honour RI HFRORJLFDOVDLQWV VXFKDV 6DLQW 'LDQ)RVVH\
Saint Edward O. Wilson and other environmentally concerned peoSOHZKRZHUHVDQFWLILHGE\WKH*DUGHQHUVWKHRORJ\7KURXJKWKHHnvironmentalist concept of history, the sequel enters a dialogue with
Oryx and Crake, where cyclical timeframes were connected to the
23
)RU LQVWDQFH *RG JDYH XQWR WKH $QLPDOV $ ZLVGRP SDVW RXU SRZHU WR VHH
(DFKNQRZVLQQDWHO\KRZWROLYH:KLFKZHPXVWOHDUQODERULRXVO\TYotF 236).
252
extinction of the human race. That the tension between questionable

morals and ethico-environmental vision is not resolved only adds to
WKHQDUUDWLYHVVLQJXODULW\
*****
$WZRRGVtexts emplot ethical and environmentalist discourses. But it
is their narrative reintegration that allows the novels to criticise static
moral systems and provide the potential of dialogicity rather than a
single perspective. Thus, the critique usually brought forward against
dystopian narratives namely, that the sense of immediate danger and
the threatening tone contain black-and-white thinking and a claim for
transhistorical truths is countered by the meta-commentary the texts
provide on what I called WKHSRVWQDWXUDOJUH\ Oryx and Crake and
The Year of the Flood stand aV D ZDUQLQJ EXWWKLVZDUQLQJ LPSOLHV
that choice, and therefore hope, are still possible (Moylan 2000:
136). This holds especially true in the context of re-thinking humanism. With regard to the idea of EnvironMentality, the question is how
this sense of choice and hope can be described in terms of narrative
experiences.
The most significant effects again rely on the tensions the text
VWDJHV 7KLV DOVR LQIOXHQFHV DQ\ DWWHPSW DW reading as an animal
Indeed, the texts lend themselves to being read from a Darwinian
angle. Understanding and accepting RQHV biological heritage enables
a re-thinking of what it means to be human after the catastrophe. And
ZKLOH-LPP\6QRZPDQVPHPRULHVRIDUWLVWLFZRUG-smithery fade and
vanish into the oblivion of meaninglessness, Toby, while listening to
the birds one day, approaches the problem of language from quite a
different angle:
Oodle-oodle-ooo. Oodle-oodle-ooo. Chirrup, twareep. Aw aw aw. Ey ey ey.
Hoom hoom baroom. Mourning dove, robin, crow, bluejay, bullfrog. Toby says
their names, but these names mean nothing to them. Soon her own language will
EHJRQHRXWRIKHUKHDGDQGWKLVZLOOEHDOOWKDWVOHIWLQWKHUH>@7KHFHDVHOHVV
repetition, the song with no beginning and no end. No questions, no answers, not
in so many words. Not in any words at all. Or is it all one huge Word? (TYotF
349)
Epitomised by the motif of human language, this passage addresses

the greatest impasse of all in the endless negotiation of the human
within the natural world: Where, in fact, can we locate the place of
homo sapiens sapiens? We cannot, it seems clear now, think about

nature, culture, postnatural environments and the question of the humanities and the arts if we do not re-assess our notions of humanism
as such. The focus on postnatural environments and the loss of independence that, according to McKibben, defines the postnatural world
KLJKOLJKWWKHIDFWWKDWWKHend of nature in a dialectical sense implies
that human mastery in general but humanism in particular have led to
estrangement and loss, thus gaming away the once high hopes of humanist notions (see Huggan & Tiffin 2010: 203). But still, these concepts cannot and must not be done away with easily.
Is humanism UHDOO\ OLWWOH PRUH WKDQ human chauvinism as Val
and Richard Routley (1980) argue? With a specific focus on the entanglements of humanist history and postcolonial environments,
Huggan and 7LIILQFODLPWKDWDSRVWFRORQLDOKXPDQLVP is possible,
and they link this concept to debates of posthumanism (2010: 208).
7KLVGHEDWHWKH\DUJXHJRHVDVWHSIXUWKHUWKDQ)XGJHVcall WRWKLQN
EH\RQGRXUVHOYHV (2002: 22). +XJJDQDQG7LIILQFODLPWKDWZKDWLV
probably most needed is [...] the courage to imagine new ways in
which human and non-human societies, understood as being ecologically connected, can be creatively transformed (Huggan & Tiffin
2010: 215). In my final reading, I will go into greater detail as far as
posthumanism and its literary renderings are concerned, but I will also
GLVWDQFH P\ UHDGLQJV IURP +XJJDQ DQG 7LIILQV SURSRVed ecological
humanism. That is to say, while they argue for a holistic approach to
complexity and, ultimately, politics, I will show that in fiction such
negotiations are not the constitutive element of literary singularity.
The posthuman condition in literature is not marked by the optimism
of creatively transforming societies but rather by an engagement with
woundednessDV&RUD'LDPRQGFODLPV7KLVZRXQGHdness is an acknowledgement of the innumerable intricacies and complexities of this multispecies world, and experiencing woundedness
marks an important step towards EnvironMentality.
I will therefore not be looking for literary renderings of political or
ecolRJLFDO VROXWLRQV IRU WKH FRPSOH[ HQWDQJOHPHQWV DQG HFRORJLFDO
FRQQHFWLRQV,QVWHDG,ZLOO point to ways in which literature negotiates them. In so doing, I will also reassess the findings of this chapter,
where I worked with the tension of human connectedness to evolutionary processes on the one hand, and human separateness (in terms
of responsibility but also in terms of perception) on the other. Thus, I
follow Soper who maintains that
254
all our ecological injunctions whether to sacrifice our own interests to those of
nature, or to preserve nature in the interest of our future well-being, to keep our
hands off it, or to harness it in sustainable ways, to appreciate the threat we pose
to nature or to recognize our kinship with it are clearly rooted in the idea of human distinctiveness. (Soper 1995: 40)
The role of the human being as conceived in humanistic idealism is

QRWVRHDVLO\GLVFDUGHGDQG>Z@KDWLV>@DW issue [...] is not the positioning of the distinction itself, but the way in which it is to be drawn,
and importantly whether it is conceptualized as one of kind or degree
(40). Yet, while it is difficult to answer these questions, I will return
once more to literary texts that engage with an encounter with the
RWKHU in order to show that the other can be found in nature and culture and that it also lurks within ourselves.
Ultimately, and just as Jimmy/Snowman and Toby recreate their
identities by listening to their own heartbeat, we as readers must do so
as well and come to terms with the challenge of humanism, torn between rationalism and sentiment, and challenged by the necessity to
engage with our creatural being. The texts I have read in this chapter
have shown the category of the human to be a category that is engenGHUHGE\PHDQVRIDQRWKHUQHVV (see Murphy 1998) the human self
is always also created by others, human and nonhuman, and our identities respond to our environments. But identities we have. Readers of
the dystopian tales of Atwood might understand the narrative power to
emplot these ideas with regard to postnatural identities. The interpreWLYHFKDOOHQJHWRJUDVSWKHRWKHUDQGthink beyond ourselves in the
context of humanity and humanism will be the focus of the next chapter.
9. Posthumanism and the Wounded Being:

7UDQVIRUPDWLYH0LPHVLVLQThe Lives of Animals and
Elizabeth Costello
Admittedly, I have shunned so far a discussion of the two slogans I
mentioned at the beginning of this book, namely the challenge of
thinking like a mountainDQGNQRZLQJZKDWLWLVOLNHto be a bat.
They will now return to the fore. My readings so far have shown that
EnvironMentality does not have anything to do with a factual understanding of an ecosystem, the actual consciousness of bats or, for
that matter, the thoughts of mountains. Instead, it is engendered by
moments of literary singularity, the event of fiction and the experience
of naturalcultural alterity. ,Q KLV GLVFXVVLRQ RI -0 &RHW]HHV Elizabeth Costello,1 James Wood UHFRXQWV&RVWHOORVOHFWXUHE\VWDWLQJWKDW
IRU&RVWHOORLPDJLQLQJZKDWLWLVOLNHWREHDEDWZRXOGVLPSO\EHWKH
defiQLWLRQ RI D JRRG QRYHOLVW - :RRG 7his claim will
inform the first part of my argument. The second one engages with
CostelloVLGHDWKDWVXFKDIRUPRINQRZOHGJHLVWLHGWRDSDUDGR[LFal
WHQVLRQ , DP DOLYH LQVLGH WKH FRQWUDGLFWLRQ dead and alive at the
same time (EC 77). In this chapter, I will show that in his writing,
Coetzee DGGUHVVHVWKLVWHQVLRQE\YLUWXHRIDpoetics of failure and
through the narrative harmonisation of this failure.
In an interview with David Attwell, Coetzee discusses a FHUtain
elegance of poetic closureWKDWKHGHVFULEHVDVPDQHXYHUVWRDFKLHYH
FORVXUHE\FXWWLQJWKHOLQNEHWZHHQDFRQVROLQJO\UHDOZRUOG RIDuthors, pen and ink, and sequences of signs, on the one hand, and a
ILFWLYHZRUOGRIDFWLRQVDQGSDVsions, on the other (Coetzee & Attwell 1992: 86). Such forms of closure no longer seem to work in literature. The problems of authentic being, however, permeate modern
fiction from Flaubert to Beckett and have been addressed by various
narrative means. Currently, Coetzee conceives DQXQGHUO\LQJpoetics
of failure which he understands as ambivalent through and
1
In the following referred to as EC.
256
through because it only offers D SURJUDP IRU FRQVWUXFWLQJ DUWLIDFWV

out of an endlessly regressive, etiolated self-consciousness lost in the
labyrinth of language and endlessly failing to erect itself into autonomy (Coetzee & Attwell 1992: 7; 87). Drawing on the concepts of
WKH GLHJHWLF OHDS (Bergthaller 2006: 167) and readerly engagement
with the fictional environment one is trying to read, I will in this chapter describe the ethical dimension of such a poetics of failure in Coet]HHVRZQZRUNand situate it in the context of EnvironMentality.
Since knowing what it is like to be a bat is no claim to scientific,
factual or absolute knowledge, it surfaces in the interpretive engagement with gaps and tensions and manifests itself in the experience of
alterity. It epitomises the event of fiction in a moment of singularity.
In that it expresses what other discourses fail to express, literature
RSHQVXSQHZSRVVLELOLWLHVIRUPHDQLQJDQGIHHOLQJ, and this is what
FRQVWLWXWHV LWV otherness, Attridge argues (2004a: 11; emphasis
orig.). I have followed this in my readings, and I have accounted for
the formal elements the novelistic discourse and the aesthetic devices of fiction from focalisation to intertextuality and from generic
transgressions to sequelisation LQ WKH SURFHVVHV RI WXUQLQJ RWKHUQHVV
LQWRVDPHQHVVLQDKHUPHQHXWLFWUDQVIRrmation (Attridge 2004a: 11).
I will now bring together these various elements in a discussion of
what may well be the most pressing question and the most important
challenge to ecocriticism: the problem of reality and thus, an-RWKHUV
reality in fiction.
$FHQWUDOHOHPHQWLQWKHGLVFXVVLRQRI&RHW]HHVILFWLRQLVWKHFKDracter of Elizabeth Costello, and apparently, it is easier to discuss what
critics think her character is like than to actually situate her in the
diegetic world she comes from. David Lodge calls Elizabeth Costello
a novel RQO\LQZDQWIRUDEHWWHUZRUG (2003: 6), and the relation of
Elizabeth Costello to The Lives of Animals complicates matters further. Coetzee delivered the main text of The Lives of Animals2 as part
of the Tanner Lectures at Princeton University in 1997-98, much to
the surprise of his audience, as a reading of a work of fiction.3 Coetzee
2
3
In the following referred to as TLoA.

Derek Attridge recalls that the peculiarity of the situation resembled the one presented and thus anticipated in The Lives of Animals. +H ZULWHV WKDW WKHUH
could be no GRXEWDERXWWKHVXUSULVHSURGXFHGE\&RHW]HHVRSHQLQJZRUGVVSRken in his quiet, grave voice >@1RSUHOLPLQDU\H[SODQDWLRQQRLQWURGXFWLRQWR
SUHSDUHXV>@QREUHDNLQWKHILFWLRQDOWLVVXHIURPKHQFHIRUZDUGWRWKHHQGRI
the presentation(2004a: 193).
Posthumanism and the Wounded Being
257
although expected to talk about social or political issues was reading out a novella about a novelist who was talking about ethics although she was expected to be talking about her fiction. To add to the
confusion, both Coetzee and Costello placed the reading in a literary
tradition with Kafka, whose Report to an Academy is a constant
reference. The Lives of Animals thus presents itself as a hall of mirrors
that reflects, musters and refracts numerous images of fiction, language and authentic being.
&RHW]HHV Elizabeth Costello, published four years later, adds to
the confusion. TKHQRYHOIHDWXUHVHLJKWOHVVRQV ZKHWKHUWKH\DUH
lessons for the central character or for the reader is not made clear,
Lodge points out (2003: 6) and all of the lessons are lectures Coetzee had been giving via the fictional character of Costello and on
WRSLFV DV GLYHUVH DV WKH QRYHO LQ $IULFD WKH SUREOHP RI HYLO and
WKHKXPDQLWLHVLQ$IULFDThe Lives of Animals is absorbed into this
text too, and now stands as lessons three and four in the context of
&RVWHOORVJHQHUDOSUDFWLFHRIOHFWXULQJ,QWKHFRXUVHRIWKLVFKDSWHU
I will address some of the issues that this construction brings up, and I
will relate them to my approach of EnvironMentality. Before I do,
however, I want to point to the fact that by virtue of the postmodern,
metafictional poetic licence that Coetzee takes, both texts seem to be
far removed from the referential-UHDOLVW PRGHO WH[W RI %XHOOV SDUadigm.
%XHOOV FODLP of the referentiality of texts was an attempt to unearth what for him seemed to have been lost in postmodern scholarship: the connection between world and text. However, I will argue
WKDWWKHJRRGGRVHRIIRUPDOLVP (Phillips 2003: 168) that allegedly
stood between earth and literature does not prevent this connection,
but that it highlights and even engenders it. Thus, I will conclude my
argument for a formalist, hermeneutic reading praxis by reading Coet]HHV QRYHOs as environmental texts, not because of the notions of
environmental philosophy that they maintain (or incorporate into the
novelistic discourse, I should say) but because they open up ways of
WKLQNLQJ DERXW UHDOLW\ DQG WKH UHDO ZRUOG by engaging with the
FRPSOH[LW\RIRXUPRUDOIDEric (J. Wood 2009: 135).4
Wood does not talk about Coetzee here but about dilemmas in moral philosophy
DQG ILFWLRQV VKDUH LQ coming to terms with these dilemmas. As will be shown
below, this is what I believe to be WKHFDVHLQ&RHW]HHVZRUNDVZHOOUDWKHUWKDQ
258
7KHUHIRUH,ZLOOEULHIO\GHVFULEHWKHproblem of reality in its philosophical and literary context and then go on to explain what I think
is its relation to (postcolonial) ecocriticism and, more generally, to the
HWKLFVRIUHDGLQJ,ZLOOIROORZ&RUD'LDPRQGVFODLPWKat the character of Costello HPERGLHVDIRUPRIwoundedness that
expresses a posthuman condition, but I will expand the argument for
posthuman identities to a discussion of what humanism, with or withRXWWKHSRVW-, can and must mean in the age of environmental crisis
and in a multispecies world. I will conclude my argument by discussing what Sam DurUDQWKDVFDOOHGWKHlimits of the sympathetic imaginatioQ. These considerations, however, will always be tied to
the textual meaning as it emerges in the literary staging and by means
of emplotment, and I will thus complement the argument for a focus
on IRUPZLWKRXWIRUPDOLVP (Attridge 2004b: 119) in (postcolonial)
ecocriticism.
*****
7KHUH LV ILUVW RI DOO WKH SUREOHP RI RSHQLQJ QDPHO\ KRZ WR JHW XV
from where we are, which is, as yet, nowhere (EC 1). This is how
Elizabeth Costello begins, and despite the fact that the first chapter is
FDOOHGRealism readers are confronted on the following pages with
the creation, destabilisation and eventual destruction of the protagonist,5 all in a highly metafictional and deconstructive, textual environment. &KULV'DQWDFDOOVLWDPHWDILFWLRQDOVWXWWHUDQGFODLPVWKDW
rather than a story, Elizabeth Costello HPSORWVWKHGHVLUHIRUDVWRU\
[...] The opening few sentences of Elizabeth Costello leave us feeling
dislocated; neither entirely in a story, nor entirely out of one (2011:
solving problems and providing solutions, it emplots our living in a world of

words, as Attridge says (2004b: 130).
Of course, much more could bHVDLGDERXW&RHW]HHVFKDUDFWHUVZHUHLWQRWIRUWKH
restriction of space. The character of Elizabeth Costello is a particularly notable
example since by choosing an elderly woman as the one to argue for a becomingwith with animals, Coetzee makes a subtle dig at Deleuze and Guattari. Deleuze
and Guattari contrast their elevated fantasy of becoming-animal with the domesticated, the old and the feminine. Haraway (2008) comments that for Deleuze and
*XDWWDULWKHXOWLPDWHILJXUH[s] of abjection [are] elderly women, the very type of
the sentimental. [...] The old, female, small, dog- and cat-loving: these are who
and what must be vomited out by those who will become-animal. [...] I am not
sure I can find in philosophy a clearer display of misogyny, fear of aging, incuriosity about animals, and horror of the ordinariness of flesh (30).
259
xi). At the same time, however, the character of Elizabeth Costello is

strangely convincing. Arguably, Coetzee does not seem too concerned
WKDW KLV ODQJXDJH EH EHQW WRward the world (Buell 2008: 33) but I
am convinced that the persuasiveness of the character has a lot to do
with how Coetzee is read: Elizabeth Costello and the The Lives of
Animals are undoubtedly read as postcolonial, environmental texts.6
Thus, Coetzee is often discussed more as a philosophical writer than
as an author of fiction EHFDXVH LW VHHPV &RVWHOOR LV VR UHDO WR
readers that they begin to discuss her ethical stance and even defend
her (see Cavalieri 2009; Cavell et al. 2008; Mulhall 2009; Wright
2006).
/DXUD:ULJKWVWDWHVWKDWVKHUHOXFWDQWO\LGHQWLI>LHV@ZLWK&RVWHOOR
EHFDXVH VKH IHHOV KHUVHOI GUDZQ LQWR KHU FDPS DV D YHJDQ DQLPDO
rights activist and scholar (2006: 199). For sure, Wright is very aware
of the problematic crossing of diegetic boundaries that defending
CostelloVFKDUDFWHULPSOLHVDQGVKHFODLPVWRUHFRJQL]HWKHFULWLcal
danger of such a stance (199). However, I find the fact that she feels
the need to speak for Costello, and the explanation for why she does
it, very telling, and I think that her argument fits seamlessly into a
notion of the ethics of reading empathetically but cautiously. >,@W LV
from a perspective of identification, Wright aVVHUWVWKDW,ZDQWKHU
to have a life of her own, so to speak, to occupy critical space as a
creature who both speaks about and enacts her ethics (199). At first
glance, it seems to be the fact that Costello strikes a chord with ethically minded academics that invites this confession.7 But I think that
ultimately it is not likemindedness that evokes such a response;
:ULJKWVZLVKIRU&RVWHOORto have a life of her own, I believe, has
been fostered by the literary quality of the fiction, and it shows the
6
The same can be said about Disgrace (1999) and its protagonist David Lurie, who
is often read as a mouthpiece for Coetzee and an ethical stance that resembles
&RVWHOORVWRDFHUWDLQH[WHQWVHH*UDKDP+HUURQ 2005).
One may wonder whether Elizabeth Costello would actually be pleased to read
such defenses. In one of her lessons, Costello thinks about the support she receives. 6KH ZRQGHUV ZKHWKHU VKH KDV EHHQ LQYLWHG WR D WDON LQ $PVWHUGDP EHcause of a talk she gave last year at a college in the United States, a talk for which
she was attacked in the pages of Commentary (belittling the Holocaust, that was
the charge) and defended by people whose support for the most part embarrassed her: covert anti-Semites, animal-ULJKWVVHQWLPHQWDOLVWVEC 156). The nonchalant fusion of anti-Semitism and animal rights advocacy, and of animal rights
advocacy with sentimentalism, is a tough move, and for me, it expresses a strong
GLVFRPIRUWZLWKEHLQJGHIHQGHG
260
SRZHURIILFWLRQWRPDNHXVIHHODVWUDQJHWHQGHUQHVVIRUDFKDUDFWHU
as we become DZDUH RI VRPHWKLQJ WKDW he [or she] does not know,
that he is not real (J. Wood 2009: 86; emphasis orig.).
,QVWHDGRIGLVFXVVLQJWKHSKLORVRSKLFDOLVVXHVDWVWDNHLQ&RHW]HHV
writing, and instead of speculating about his ethical agenda, I therefore read his texts as what they are fiction and ask for their literariness and singularity in order to account for their relevance to the
discourses they touch upon. The link between philosophy and literature, I will argue, is the access they provide, or deliberately fail to
provide, to reality, and Coetzee does foster a reflection of this link by
means of his fiction an effect that is proven by the way that readers
take his characters seriously to a point of believing that it is Coetzee
himself who is speaking. This identification takes place despite the
numerous metafictional and postmodernist reflections on writing and
fictionality, or maybe even because of them. In this way, Coetzee
emphasises the literariness of his work, but he also points to what I
KDYH GLVFXVVHG DV WKH WUXWK RI ILFWLRQ LQ WKLV VWXG\ 8OWLPDWHO\ E\
refuting realist mimesis, he provides access to the world in ways that
are more convincing and honest than any referential illusion could be.
Coetzee does not provide for easy readings. His fiction encompasses a whole array of modernist/postmodernist elements 8 and orchestrates a complex array of intertextual, metafictional and intellectual nodes. Dominic Head concludes that KLV ZRUNV FDQ PDNH DQ
instant and impressive impact on readers, who are sometimes uncertain as to how to understand, or account for that impact (2009: ix).
7KDWLVWRVD\KHLVDGLIILFXOWZULWHUDQGIRUVXUHKLVZRUNVHHPV
almost diametrically opposed to the claims of referential realism and a
VXSSRVHG HWKLFV RI PLPHVLV $QWL-PLPHWLFGHYLFHVDERXQGLQ &RHt]HHVILFWLRQ. SWUXJJOLQJZLWKDQ\ZLOOLQJVXVSHQVLRQRIGLVEHOLHIKH
provides footnotes to his narratives (The Lives of Animals), breaks
QDUUDWLYH OLQHDULW\ E\ KDYLQJ VHYHUDO OD\HUV RI QDUUDWLRQ GLVWLnguished by lines that cut the pages in thirds (Diary of a Bad Year),
numbers the paragraphs in his novel instead of dividing it into chapters (In the Heart of the Country), and plays with multiple layers of
8
Neil Lazarus (1986-7) argues that Coetzee is a modernist writer, and he locates
WKHHWKLFDOLPSDFWRIKLVZULWLQJLQLWVPDUJLQDOLW\DQGDFXWHVHOI-FRQVFLRXVQHVV
(148). David Attwell (1993), however, regards the metafictional elements as
distinctly postmodernist and wonders why postmodernist fiction should necessarily be unethical (20).
261
metafiction (Slow Man) all these postmodHUQ SDUW\ WULFNV $ttridge 2004a: 201) WKDW SRVW-SRVWPRGHUQ ecocriticism (see Zapf
2006a: 1) wanted to leave behind because it seemed like a circular
argument for the exhaustion of language, the problem of identity, and
WKH ZDULQHVV DJDLQVW JUDQG QDUUDWLYHV DQG FORVXUH 7KH QDUUDWLYH
about and around Elizabeth Costello is of course closely related to
these aspects and expresses a cautiousness about language that belies
any referentialist notion. Indeed, the novel is a mirror hall of language
and reading it means engaging with the cracks and fissures of its
mirrors (see Carstensen 2007).
This is why the devices that Coetzee uses to engage with the difficulty of reality are no mannerisms. Rather, and this makes it particularly interesting for my approach of EnvironMentality &RHW]HH UeVLVWVILFWLRQVEHLQJPDGHWRGHOLYHUXVable ethical contentas David
Attwell puts it (2006: 25). In this way, Coetzee underlines the importance of the aesthetic form of writing and the meaning and arguing
emplotted by fictional discourse. It is true that, as Attwell claims,
>W@KH PRUH FXULRXs and attentive reader [...] will want to work with
and through the difficulties of the text (2006: 26), but the narrative of
Costello, I argue, does not provide a solution for this intellectual
quest. I think that this is the specific literary effectiveness of the narrative, and I will demonstrate it by briefly commenting on the reception
of the novella and the novel.
In more blatant readings, Costello is regarded as a mouthpiece for
Coetzee, who seems unable to voice his opinion in other ways than
through fiction. Thus 3HWHU 6LQJHU REMHFWV WKDW &RHW]HHV ILFWLRQDO
device enables him to distance himself from [the arguments] (in
TLoA 91). But the text can of course be read in other ways too, and the
FRQWULEXWLRQVLQ3R\QHUVJ.M. Coetzee and the Idea of the Public Intellectual (2006) impressively illustrate how many readings and how
PDQ\ OLQNV WR LQWHOOHFWXDO DQG HWKLFDO LVVXHV DUH SRVVLEOH &RHW]HHV
texts are read as allegories about belief, embodiment or the inability to
believe in believing; it is reaG DJDLQVW WKH IRLO RI (UDVPXV WKLQNLQJ
and, of course, in the context of animal rights discourse. Laura Wright
VXPPDULVHVWKHVHUHDGLQJVDQGREVHUYHVWKHSHUYDVLYHQHHGE\PDQ\
RI &RHW]HHV FULWLFV >@ WR SRVLW &RVWHOORV ILFWLRQDOLW\ DW WKH YHU\
least to read her metaphorically (2006: 197). Costello would not have
liked that, for sure, since she neither wants WREHUHDGDVDSRVWFROoQLDO DXWKRU QRU GRHV VKH OLNH WKH FDWHJRULVLQJ JHVWXUH WKDW WXUQV
262
fictional characters into stand-ins.9 This is why Derek Attridge, in the

well-argued J.M. Coetzee and the Ethics of Reading, VWDWHVWKDWDOOegorical reading of the traditional kind has no place for [...] uncertainty
and open-endedness (2004a: 48). After all, DOOHJRU\ GHDOV ZLWK WKH
already known, whereas literature opens a space for the other (Attridge 2006: 79; emphasis orig.).
To open spaces for the other instead of staging what is already
known is close to the fRUPDOLVWLQWHUHVWLQYLVLRQLQVWHDGrather than
UHFRJQLWLRQ Moreover, it echoes all that has been said about conILJXUDWLYHPLPHVLVDQG%HUJWKDOOHUVGLVFXVVLRQRIWKHmisconception
of the naWXUH RI HWKLFDO FRPPLWPHQWV in fiction. Bergthaller claims
that
environmental texts, insofar as they reflect on ethical questions, do indeed imitate
however, what they imitate is not the physical environment, but human actions
and the narrative forms that provide the framework within which these actions become meaningful. (2006: 170)
I have argued that it is not so much a mimesis of human actions but

the emplotment and experience of alterity that allows us to call fiction
effective and, thus, ethical, but I cite this passage because I find
BergthDOOHUV DVVHUWLRQ WKDW ILFWLRQ imitates the narrative forms of
making-sense interesting. What he actually says is that fiction not only
describes the human being-in-the-world but also the forms of staging
it; fiction is always also potentially meta-fictional. How does this apSO\WR&RHW]HHVWH[WV"$QGZKDWLVEHLQJVWDJHGQHJRWLDWHGDQGHxperienced?
While The Lives of Animals has been read as a form of Socratic
GLDORJXH LW LV UDWKHU DV 0LFKDHO %HOO DUJXHV WKDW &RHW]HH KDV GeYLVHG D ZRUN WKDW JHQXLQHO\ DQVZHUV WR ERWK WKH FDWHJRU\ RI ILFWLRQ
and the category of non-fictional debate and WKHUHE\ VXFFHHGV in
radically destabilizing both (Bell 2006: 173). That is to say, it stages
the dialogue form but does not follow its rules at all. And while it
VKDUHVWKHSKLORVRSKLFDOLQWHUHVWLQWUXWK&RHW]HHVtruth is not found
by reasoning but is presented in the form of what Dominic Head calls
9
+HUVRQ-RKQWKLQNVWKDW>K@LVPRWKHUZLOOEHGLVDSSRLQWHG>@LIVKHOHDUQVWKDW
the Stowe Award is hers only because 1995 has been decreed to be the year of
Australasia DQG &RVWHOOR KHUVHOI UHPDUNV WKDW .DIND LV UHDG DV DQ DOOHJRU\ RI
Kafka the JHZSHUIRUPLQJ IRU*HQWLOHVZKLOHLQ IDFW>L@WPHDQV what it says. I
say what I mean (EC 8; 62).
263
VSDUVHQHVV DQ XQIOLQFKLQJ KRQHVW\ RI H[SUHVVLRQ LQ ZKLFK EDVHU

motives are rendered without apparent amelioration (Head 2006:
108-9). Most importantly, however, his writing does not shy away
from having the character break down, expose vulnerability and lose
KHUWHPSHU:LWK6RFUDWLFFKDUDFWHUVRQHFDQQHYHUNQRZKRZPXFK
RI WKH SURMHFWV VXFFHVV >RI WKH GLDORJXH@ LV GXH WR WKH ORJLFDO DQG
propositional force of the argument [...], and how much to the linguistic and literary means of persuasion (Wolfe 2009a: 47).10 Certainly,
WKHQRYHOVHIIHFWDOZD\VRZHVPXFKWROLWHUDU\PHDQVRISHUVXDVLRQ
after all, it is literary fiction. But it must be noted that instead of
fusing persuasive rhetoric and philosophical argument, Elizabeth
Costello stages the failure of such philosophising and from there
gathers its force. But how then are we to read the novel, if not as an
allegory or as a philosophical-literary hybrid?
Cora Diamond wonders what it means to simply read &RHW]HHV
lectures as literature, and she eventually realises how much Coet]HHV QDUUDWLYH techniques are indebted to the narration of the world
and its reality (2008: 53). Despite the mass of criticism that discusses
the ethical argument brought forward in the texts, she maintains that
ZH FDQQRW XQGHUVWDQG WKH DUJXPHQW-IUDJPHQWV LQ &RHW]HHV OHctures without first taking seriously how argument is treated within the
story, by Elizabeth Costello (53). +HUFODLPWKDW&RHW]HHVOHFWXUHV
haYH WR EH UHDG ILUVW RI DOO DV OLWHUDWXUH (53) ties in neatly with my
DUJXPHQWSUHVHQWHGLQWKLVVWXG\+HUUHIOHFWLRQRQZKDWLVPHDQWE\
UHDGLQJWKHPDVOLWHUDWXUH(53) provides for a challenging discussion
of the role and ethics of reading that I want to elaborate on.
In the course of her argument, Diamond points out WKDW&RHW]HHV
lectures do not so much press any philosophical conviction but that
they rather present via Costello DNLQGRIZRXQGHGQHVVRUKDXQtedness, a terrible rawness of nerves (47). This woundedness, she
goes on to argue, is a general reaction to the conditions under which
we live, but also and more particularly, it reflects the problems philosophical thinking encounters when it deals with the complexity and
elusiveness of UHDOLW\ 1RWRQO\XQGHUVWDQGLQJWKHDQLPDOEXWDOVR
XQGHUVWDQGLQJ >@ WKH NLQG RI DQLPDO ZH DUH LV SUHVHQW RQO\ LQ D
10
&DYDOLHULVRZQYHQWure into the literary realm, published in the same volume, can
be seen as an example of this. Moral pamphlets that highjack fictional licence are
SUREDEO\WKHRSSRVLWHRIZKDWLVPHDQWE\WKHHYHQWRIILFWLRQ. 'DQLHO4XLQQV
Ishmael (1992) stands as another case in point.
264
diminished and distorted way in philosophical argumentation (Diamond 2008: 57; see also Derrida 2008; for a discussion of these questions in the work of Agamben, Levinas and others, see Wolfe 2009b).
Philosophy, with its tendency towards systematisation and coherent
argument cannot account for the intricate and contingent, chaotic and
FRQIOLFWLYH UHDOLW\ RI OLYLQJ DQG 'LDPRQG VXJgHVWV GHIOHFWLRQ a
WHUP FRLQHG E\ 6WDQOH\ &DYHOO WR GHVFULEH ZKDW KDSSHQV ZKHQ ZH
are moved from the appreciation [...] of a difficulty of reality to a philosophical or moral problem apparently in the vicinity (Diamond
2008: 57).
James Wood cites the philosopher Bernard Williams, who was
likewise discontent with the fact that moral philosophy in particular
HVVHQWLDOO\ ZURWH WKH PHVVLQHVV RI WKH VHOI RXW RI SKLORVRSKLFDO GLscussion, and who argued against this deflection of those moral diOHPPDV WKDW cannot be solved by philosophical reflection (J. Wood
2009: 133). With regard to the role of literary texts in this context,
:RRG PDLQWDLQV WKDW WKH QRYHO GRHV QRW SURYLGH SKLORVRSKLFDO DnVZHUVEXWWKDWLWJLYHVWKHEHVWDFFRXQWRIRXUPRUDOIDEULFE\ staging these dilemmas and the human condition in ways that are capable
of changing our ways of seeing the world (135). This is not unlike
'LDPRQGV DUJXPHQW ZKHUH VKH LQVWHDG RI SURFODLPLQJ OLWHUDU\ Vupremacy over philosophical speculation, attributes a specific capabilLW\RIHQJDJLQJZLWKZKDWVKHFDOOVZRXQGHGQHVVWROLWHUDU\WH[WV
In this way, the novel accounts for the problem of unthinkability as
described by Cary Wolfe in his work on posthumanism (see Wolfe
2010: 123), and it confronts us with the singularity of its meaning.
8QWLOWKLVPRPHQW:RRGSXWVLWEULOOLDQWO\RQHZDVFRPSDUDWLYHO\
inarticulate; until this moment, one had been blandly inhabiting a deSULYHGHORTXHQFH (2009: 147) but the novel finds ways of articulating the inarticulable. Fiction (and experimental fiction in particular)
thus always hints at the necessity of accepting a model of reality that
allows for contingency and for what Wolfe has called the posthumanLVWLQFUHDVHLQWKHYLJLODQFHUHVSRQVLELOLW\DQGKXPLOLW\What accompany living in a world so newly, and differently, inhabited (2010:
47). 7KLV LV ZK\ WKH cautious hermeneutics of (postcolonial) ecocriticism can engage with texts that emplot the irresolvable tensions of
posthumanist humility.
One of the crucial aspects of such a posthumanist humility is the
distrust of sophisticated, abstract, and disembodied analyses as epitoPLVHGE\1RUPDVIRUPRISKLORVRSKLFDOLQTXLU\1RUPDXQHPSOR\HG
265
philosopher of mind and utterly unsympathetic towards Costello, tries

to argue with Costello on every possible occasion and point to the
VKRUWFRPLQJVRIKHUWKHVHV ,Q&RVWHOORVIDLOLQJDUJXPHQWDWLRQDQG
in her reading of the poems of Rilke and Hughes, however, she does
QRW XQHDUWK D PRUDO V\VWHP EXW VKH FODLPV WKDW WKH SURFHVV FDOOHG
poetic invention [...] mingles breath and sense in a way that no one has
explained and no one ever will (EC 98/ TLoA 53). As it were, Costello tries to evoke a sense of animal individuality rather than an ethics.
7KLVWLHVLQZLWK=DSIVGLVFXVVLRQRI
the ways in which the narrative mode is necessary to provide a medium for the
concrete exemplification of ethical issues that cannot adequately be explored on a
merely systematic-theoretical level. (Zapf 2009: 853).
However, since she is unable to develop her ethics systematically, her

stance provokes a sense of being-wounded by others. Costello understands that her attitude towards animals and human-animal relations is
DQDWWLWXGHWKDt is easy to criticize, to mock, because it does not follow any criteria of ethical discourse in the analytical sense (EC
97/TLoA 52). And this is what happens: Norma claims that Costello is
UDQWLQJUDWKHUWKDQIRUPulating an argument and that her ideas lack
logical consistency 7KHUHLVQRSRVLWLRQRXWVLGHRIUHDVRQZKHUH\RX
can stand and lecture about reason and pass judgment on reason; EC
93/TLoA 52). She mocks &RVWHOORV struggles with issues of respect
DQGKXPLOLW\E\FODLPLQJWKDWSRWHQWLDOO\>\@RXVSHQGVRPXFKWLPH
respecting that you haYHQWWLPHOHIWWRWKLQN (EC 92/TLoA 51).
Whereas Norma adheres to a drastic and cold system of thought,
Elizabeth does not and cannot do so. Accordingly, the ethical effectiveness of the text lies not in its theses, which can be discussed as if
the text were a philosophical essay but comes into its own through its
fictionality, the emplotment of discourses, tensions and, ultimately,
the staging of the difficulty of reality. Therefore, it is interesting to
distinguish the different layers that constitute the narrative. There is
&RVWHOORVDUJXPHQW, which is grounded on the dichotomy between
philosophy and poetry and which Steven Mulhall describes as the
DQFLHQWTXDUUHOEHWZHHQSKLORVRSK\DQGSRHWU\GHVFULEHGE\3ODWR,
and in the focus of debates on literature ever since (2009: 1). RePDUNDEO\WKLVDQFLHQWTXDUUHOLVFORVHO\FRQQHFWHGZLWKTXHVWLRQVRI
mimesis, which in turn concern the relationship between art and reality (see Potolsky 2006: 1; 15-46). However, since Coet]HHVWH[Ws are
266
DQ DWWHPSW E\ D PDVWHU RI OLWHUDWXUH WR SXW SKLORVRSK\ LQ TXHVtion
(Mulhall 2009: 3) a discussion of their philosophical value must fail if
their dialogicity is overlooked: they engender D GLDORJXH LQ ZKLFK
SKLORVRSK\ DQG OLWHUDWXUH SDUWLFLSDWH DV HDFK RWKHUV RWKHU as
autonomous but internally related (Mulhall 2009: 3). Thus, Attridge
claims, &RHW]HHV WH[WV DUH neither philosophical argument nor allegory but the staging of allegory (see Attridge 2004a: 61). As literature,
their power lies in the numerous nodal connections to other literary
writings, from the examples Costello gives in The Lives of Animals to
the larger textual environment of the novel Elizabeth Costello.11
And while its philosophical meaning has been debated at length,
WKHTXHVWLRQRIWKLVGLDORJXHVWH[WXDOLW\UHPDLQVXQDQVZHUHG and so
GRHV 'HUULGDV TXHVWLRQ of ZKHWKHU OLWHUDWXUH LV Vimply an example,
RQHHIIHFWRUUHJLRQDPRQJRWKHUVRIVRPHJHQHUDOWH[WXDOLW\ (1992:
70). I believe that tKH WH[WXDOLW\ RI &RHW]HHV WH[WV, their literariness
and singularity, can only be understood if the arguments they comprise are taken as representations of arguments within the overarching
structure of literary dialogicity and moments of emplotment. In these
texts, it is not the environment or some temporal relation between
identity and nature that is emplotted but the process and conflict of
rational and poetic meaning. And instead of pressing the point of this
dichotomy, I claim that by focusing on the literary discourse as a
whole, their potential becomes apparent: as a literary discourse, the
QDUUDWLYHRI&RVWHOORVOHFWXUHVKDUPRQLVHVWKHWHQVLRQV with which it
is concerned. That is to say, while Costello claims that philosophy and
poetry are absolutely divided, the text performs the very bridging its
protagonist denies. After all, it does hybridise philosophical and literary works and in so doing, it deconstructs the dichotomy on which
the discourses relies. It narrativises the ethical statements and ultimately blurs the dividing lines between discourse and speaking subjects. This does not mean, of course, that it provides for closure. It
rather WKULYHVRQWKHWHQVLRQDQGWDNHVHIIHFWDVDQDFW-HYHQW>@WKDW
is essentially temporal taking place in the performance of the reader
(Attridge 2004b: 108).
In that it deconstructs the power of argument for the benefit of
a literary arguing, it highlights what Attridge has described as the
11
Most prominently, her refutation of allegory in the last lesson can be read in these
terms, but so can KHUDWWDFNRQWKHQRYHOLVW3DXO:HVWDVLWZHUHDUHDOQRYHOLVW
and an actual book are discussed) and her discussion of realism.
267
distinct effectiveness of the literary event. Attridge maintains that

>W@KHDUJXPHQW>ZLWKLQOLWHUDWXUH@VKRXOGPRUHVWULFWO\EHFDOOHGarguing [...] wholly unlike the paradigmatic philosophical argument,
which implicitly lays claim to a timeless, spaceless, subjectless condition as it pursues its logic (Attridge 2004a: 198; emphasis orig.). The
benefit of such literary DUJXLQJ FDQ EH H[SHULHQFHG LQ &RHW]HHV ILction. Thus, it exposes academic debate as a form of sophisticated language game that loses all connection to the world because the basic
question of the animal one may WKLQNRI%HQWKDPVCan They Suffer?, for instance is lost sight of. It is by virtue of her own weakness that Costello can formulate this impasse:
If I do not convince you, that is because my words, here, lack the power to bring
home to you the wholeness, the unabstracted, unintellectual nature, of that animal
being. That is why I urge you to read the poets who return the living, electric being to language; and if the poets do not move you, I urge you to walk, flank to
flank, beside the beast that is prodded down the chute to his executioner. (EC
111/TLoA 65)
Costello argues for the actual experience of sharing the DQLPDOV

last moment in the slaughterhouse, but she also, and maybe more imSRUWDQWO\ DUJXHV IRU OLWHUDU\ ODQJXDJH WR EULQJ KRPH WKH QDWXUH RI
DQLPDOEHLQJ7KLVLVZKDWLVneeded if we are to know what it is like
to be a bat: not factual knowledge, not a quality but being, conceived as a verb rather than a noun. Diamond comes to a similar conclusion in her discussion of philosophical deflections and the problem
of reality. She concludes that it is not in philosophy but in literature
WKDWZHILQGDQRQJRLQJSURFHVVRIVWDJLQJDQGHPSORWWLQJWKHDVWRnishment and incomprehension that there should be beings so like us,
so unlike us, so astonishingly capable of being companions of ours
and so unfathomably distant (Diamond 2006: 61).
But do we need the animal in fiction for this experience? It is remarkable that we do not. Rather than engaging with real WKDW LV
nonhuman) animals, The Lives of Animals deals with what I described
in Chapter 7 DV DQLPDO ILJXUHV LQWHUWH[WXDl-chimerical nodes of
meaning, devoid of physical life but brimming with literary meaning.
At the same time, however, these literary animals Costello invokes are
not mere fictionalisations, and the effect that the novels evoke is there
not because of lifelike renderings of the animals in fact, even the
poems that Costello praises are absent from the text but because the
discourse addresses the problem of living and animality as such. They
268
DUH DV 'LDPRQG VD\V H[SRVXUHV DQG function as an animal fable

grounded on the absence of actual animals (see Diamond 2006: 73).
7KXVDQGLQDZRQGHUIXOUHYHUVLRQRIWKHVHWWLQJRI.DINDV Report
to an Academy WRZKLFK&RVWHOORUHSHDWHGO\UHIHUVWKHOLIHRIWKLV
VSHDNLQJDQGZRXQGHGDQGFORWKHGDQLPDO(OL]DEHWK&RVWHOORLVQDrrated (Diamond 2006: 47). It is
RQHRIWKHOLYHVRIDQLPDOVWKDWWKHVWRU\LVDERXWLILWWUXHWKDWZHJHQHUDOO\Uemain unaware of the lives of other animals, it is also true that, as readers of this
story, we may remain unaware, as her audience does, of the life of this speaking
animal at its centre. (47)
In the midst of intertexual relations and metafictional deconstruction, Costello exists as a creature, and it is not realist roundness but
the depth of the character and her life-like opaqueness that deters me
from categorising her arguments and brings me to focussing on her
being instead. Sure, Costello is a female character but do we have to
read her in terms of ecofeministic academic debate? And yes, the
practices of eating, the conflicts within the family, the mother-son
UHODWLRQVKLSDQG1RUPDDQG(OL]DEHWKVTXDUUHOVGRVXJJHVWDSV\FKoanalytical reading, but the remarkably strong reluctance to apply these
approaches, mentioned above, becomes understandable. It would domesticate the difficulty of reality that the novel emplots. It would
VHHPVLFNHQLQJO\UHGXFWLYH just like reading the corpses of Coet]HHV ILFWLRQDO dogs as allegories of books, as Head claims (2006:
107).
I am of course not dismissing these approaches; it is only in the
context of EnvironMentality that the event of fiction interdicts any
translation into the codes of extraliterary theory. This, I hope, will
account for the specific, unsettling quality of the literary work and its
power to stage the tensions I am struggling to describe. In fact, this is
the moment of literariness: when language fails to describe the literary
event because there are no better words than those of the work itself.
This event, and the literary quality of such writing, is not easily domesticated and silenced. In the case oI&RHW]HHVILFWLRQLt is an unsettling realism not mimetic, but transformative that resists my attempts at categorisation and paradigmatical exegesis.12 ,H[LVWEH\RQG
12
, WDNH WKH QRWLRQ RI WUDQVIRUPDWLYH PLPHVLV IURP +HLQ] ,FNVWDGW (1998), who
describes twentieth-century American prose in terms of their negotiations of
reality.
269
WKHVH FDWHJRULHV WKH FKDUDFWHU VHHPV WR FODLP DQG for the reader,
putting Costello to the test of rational categories feels deeply wrong.
,QIDFWLWUHVHPEOHV.|KOHUVH[SHULPHQWVZLWK6XOWDQ, as discussed by
Costello.
Such a resistance to reduction that is, the power of literary charDFWHUVWRVHHPUHDOGHVSLWHWKHLUEHLQJPHWDIictionally deconstructed
FRPHV YHU\ FORVH WR WKH ZKROHQHVV DQG XQDEVWUDFWHG QDWXUH of
animal being that Costello advocates. Thus, the novel itself makes a
strong point for the fullness of being by supporting a fragmented, inconsistent character in her opposition to my interpretive reductionism
and it WKXVH[HPSOLILHV&RVWHOORV FODLPWKDWWKHUHDUHQRERXQGVWR
the sympathetic imagination (EC 80/TLoA 35). 13 As Sam Durrant
FODLPV&RHW]HHVILFWLRQGRHVQRWXOWLPDWHO\WHOOXVZKDWLWLVOLNHWR
be an ape but works simply to dislodge a particular tradition of enquiry into animal intelligence, DQGE\NHHSLQJRpen the question of
other lives, the novels consWLWXWHWKHWUXHZRUNRIWKHV\PSDthetic
imagination (2006: 127). 7KDWWKLVLQWHUSUHWLYHPDQXYUHDV'RPiQLF +HDG VKRZV SXWV >&RHW]HHV@ UHDGHUV WKURXJK WKH VDPH FRQWUadicWRU\ SURFHVV RI IRUPXODWLQJ D IRUP RI UHVLVWDQFH DJDLQVW UHDVRQ
WKDW KDV WR EH FRQGXFWHG WKURXJK D SURFHVV RI FDUHIXO UHDVRQLQJ
(2006: 111) is of course part of the game. It points to the value of a
cautious hermeneutics just as much as it extrapolates the paradoxa of
ZRXQGHGQHVV7KHUHLV, Head summarises this conflictive and, ultimateO\ HWKLFDO QHJRWLDWLRQ D ZLVGRP LQ VHHNLQJ WR FRPH WR WHUPV
with this contradiction (111).
Ultimately, the novel does VKRZDQLPDOVso like us, so unlike us
by both emplotting the discourse on the lives of animals and staging
the embodiment of a living human animal. Such humanimalLW\DOVR
comprises vulnerability and mortality. As Derrida says:
mortality resides there, as the most radical means of thinking the finitude that we
share with animals, the mortality that belongs to the very finitude of life, to the
experience of compassion. (Derrida 2008: 28)
It is from there that Wolfe formulates his posthumanist stance,

13
I agree with Sam Durrant (2006) WKDW&RHW]HHVILFWLRQXQHTXLYRcally rehearses

WKH IDLOXUH RI &RVWHOORV V\PSDWKHWLF LPDJLQDWLRQ EXW , FODLP LQ OLQH ZLWK P\
argument of narrative harmonisation above, that at the same time that it emplots
this tension, it engenders a sense of the powers of such a form of imagination,
FDught between speech and silence (120).
270
not in the sense of some fantasy of transcending human embodiment (as Katherine
Hayles rightly worries in How We Became Posthuman) but rather in the sense of
returning us precisely to the thickness and finitude of human embodiment and to
human evolution as itself a specific form of animality. (Wolfe 2009b: 572)14
When Wolfe emphasises the connection of embodiment and consciousness, and by talking of posthumanism instead of the posthuman
condition, he also speaks of the specificity of moral obligations (forPHUO\NQRZQDVKXPDQLVPDQGLWVWURXEOHGFRQQHFWLRQWRDVKDUHG
animality. This connection is cleverly underlined by the place of The
Lives of Animals in the larger narrative framework of Elizabeth
Costello. As it were, it constitutes only two lectures of the novel of the
eponymous heroine, and the other lessons are concerned with sometimes radical, sometimes thoughtful considerations of the legacy of
humanism in a postcolonial-posthumanist world (see Graham 2006).
And while Elizabeth Costello HQGV ZLWK DQ HPERGLPHQW RI WKH
.DINDHVTXH (Mulhall 2009: 214-30) and a complex negotiation of
literary power, literary clichs and the role of literary writing in the
ODUJHU FRQWH[W RI WUXWK WKH HQGLQJ RI The Lives of Animals is far
PRUH PXQGDQH LW VHHPV 7KH wounded character Elizabeth breaks
down on her way to the airport, marked by the trauma of unspeakability that had been staged so impressively before, and she looks at her
VRQ,ORRNLQWR\RXUH\HV, she tells him,
DQG, see only kindness, human-kindness. Calm down, I tell myself, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. This is life. Everyone else comes to terms with
LWZK\FDQW\RX":K\FDQW\RX">@+HSXOOVWKHFDURYHUVZLWFKHVRIIWKHHngine, takes his mother in his arms. He inhales the smell of cold cream, of old
IOHVK7KHUHWKHUHKHZKLVSHUVLQKHUHDU7KHUHWKHUH,WZLOOVRRQEHRYHU
(EC 115/TLoA 69; emphasis orig.)
Of course, this scene is anything but banal. For me, it epitomises

what James Wood discusses, referring to Duns Scotus concept of
haecceitas, as the WKLVQHVV of great literature: as this passage perfectly literalises the woundedness of the posthumanist character, her
14
See also Wolfe (2010), who writes that P\ VHQVH RI SRVWKXPDQLsm does not
partake of the fantasy of the posthuman described by Katherine N. Hayles [... but]
LW UHTXLUHV XV WR DWWHQG WR WKDW WKLQJ FDOOHG WKH KXPDQ ZLWK greater specificity,
greater attention to its embodiment, embeddedness, and materiality, and how
WKHVH WKLQJV LQ WXUQ VKDSH DQG DUH VKDSHG E\ FRQVFLRXVQHVV PLQG DQG VR RQ
(120; emphasis orig.).
271
VRQVreply LVH[DFWO\WKHGHWDLOWKDWGUDZVDEVWUDFWLRQtowards itself

and seems to kill that abstraction with a puff of palpability (J. Wood
2009: 54). The ending of The Lives of Animals provides the gap and
marks the tension of the posthumanist discourse by opening up several
avenues of reading: it is grounded on an allegedly trivial syllogism
all human beings die, Elizabeth is a human being, Elizabeth will
die), but it likewise emplots the terrible finitude that Elizabeth feels
and addresses in her lectures. That such a syllogism is a possibility of
readerly interpretation, however, epitomises the radical and unbelievable power of this fictional text despite all metafictional demystifications of the character of Costello.15
7KXVWKHWH[WSHUIRUPVLWVRZQWKHVLV,XVHWKLVZRUGLQZDQWRI
a better one to describe the event of literature here): if such a diegetic
leap is possible, that is, if we can give life to Elizabeth and even read
her as a character so real that we debate her ethical notions and the
presentation of her argument, then it is indeed possLEOHWRknow what
it LV OLNH WR EH D EDW DQG why not WR WKLQN OLNH D PRXQWDLQ16
This is not a question of epistemology but a question of our readiness
for alterity and the acceptance of a shared finitude that allows for such
an experience. Indeed, it is in fiction that these transfigurations are
possible. The novel thus presents a form of bending towards the world
that is utterly non-mimetic but more effective, and it presents an acFHVV WR UHDOLW\ WKDW GRHV QRW UHO\ RQ UHIHUHQWLDOLW\ DW DOO 7KH UHDOLVW
effect of this can be described as a form of transformative mimesis
(Ickstadt), that is, a postmodern engagement with the real that knows
its own boundaries and has let go of any certainty and belief in representation. Brigid Lowe suggests replaciQJWKHWHUPrealismZLWKWKH
*UHHNWHUPhypotyposisTuoted in J. Wood 2009: 178-9) to express
ILFWLRQVFDSDELOLW\WRSXWVRPHWKLQJEHIRUHRXU eyes, to bring it alive
for us (179). Bringing reality back into the fictional work is not a
question of rHIHUHQFH EXW RI PLPHWLF SHUVXDVLRQ. And, as Wood
15
16
Attridge (2004a: 194, fn4) lists a number of mistakes in the composition of Elizabeth Costello that add to the implausibility of the character besides its metafictional and postmodern attire.
Michael Bell claims WKDW E\ SODFLQJ &RVWHOORs argument in the abyme of his
fiction, Coetzee reverses the thematic focus of the work and states that critics
ZKRGLVSXWH&RVWHOORVHWKLFVUHDGWKHWH[WDVDUHDOOHFWXUHDVLI>WKH\@ZHUHRQ
the same narrative plane DV WKH FKDUDFWHUV (175). :LWK UHJDUG WR %HUJWKDOOHUV
diegetic leap one could speak of a reversed leap into the world of fiction.
272
VD\V WKLV WDVN ZLOO RI FRXUVH LQYROYH PXFK ILFWLYH DUWLILFH DQG QRW
mere reportage (179).
*****
Talking about a historiography of the novel, for instance, in the way
Iser does in his Charting Literary Anthropology (1993), means talking
about literature in terms of an anthropological function in which aesthetic pleasure and the dealing with reality are combined. This crucial
function has also been described by Ian Watt, who, in his The Rise of
the Novel ([1957] 2000), PDLQWDLQVWKDWWKHIXQFWLRQRIWKHODQJXDJH
is much more largely referential in the novel, but who did not believe
this reference to be to the empirical world (30). Instead, once we have
accepted that it is a world of words that books are referring to, and
WKDWLWLVDOVRDZRUOGRIZRUGVWKDWZHDUHOLYLQJLQUHDOLVPbecomes
much more an effect of the novel than a certain literary period.17 Mulhall claims that, for example, Laurence Sterne in Tristram Shandy
DFKLHYHVDQHIIHFWRIUHDOLVPE\RIIHULQJDGHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIDSUeceGLQJFRQYHQWLRQIRUWKHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIUHDOLW\, and he argues that
[t]his reflexive or deconstructive operation is not something that began with the
modernist literary projects of Joyce and T.S. Eliot; it can be traced back through
Hardy and Dickens, Austen and Scott, to Swift and Sterne and to the origin of the
genre itself. (Mulhall 2009: 145)
So, when we are talking about language bending towards or away

from the world, we should be talking about literary evolution (in the
way the Formalists had described it, for example) rather than the empirical factuality of ecological science.
My reading has, therefore, not unearthed any facts. We do not read
literary texts so that they can teach us facts. If they do convey facts, it
is all very well, but it is never the distinctive feature of the literary but
something that other discourses and texts can do just as well if not
better. Rather, we have found a truth (and the indefinite article is
17
That is to say, it is even necessary to conceive of realism that way instead of just
seeing it as a mode or genre because, as James Wood claims, ZKHQDVW\OHGecomposes, flattens itself down into a genre, then indeed it does become a set of
mannerisms and often pretty lifeless techniques (2009: 175). Therefore, he goes
on to argue, >F@RQYHQWLRQ>@LVQRWGHDGEXWLWLVDOZD\VG\LQJ6RWKe artist is
trying to outwit it (180). Understood WKLV ZD\ UHDOLVP EHFRPHV D QHJRWLDWLRQ
with reality, and its forms are always and continually changing.
273
important: just as literature teaches us truth, it teaches that it is only

one truth among many and that understanding literature is a very contingent phenomenon that always hints at other truths too). Instead of
the monolithic claim of a transhistoric, intersubjective and scientific
truth, literary truth, and therefore literary referentiality, is a process of
negotiation, and this, I claim, is the ethical function of literature.
It is no coincidence that Costello cites Kafka, who is noWYHU\UHDlLVW LQ KLV ZULWLQJ HLWKHU .DIND GLGQW ZULWH Dbout people picking
their noses, she says,
but Kafka had time to wonder where and how this poor educated ape [Red Peter]
ZDVJRLQJWRILQGDPDWH>@,WLVWKHHPEHGGHGQHVVWKDWLVLPSRUWDQW>@7KDW
ape is followed through to the end, to the bitter, unsayable end, whether or not
there are traces left on the page. Kafka stays awake during the gaps when we are
sleeping, that is where Kafka fits in. (EC 32)
:HILQGWKLVQRWRQO\LQ.DINDVReport to an Academy but also in

A Crossbreed and The Cares of a Family Man Of course, Kafka
is no coincidental, LQWHUWH[WXDOSUHFXUVRUQHLWKHUWKHFXULRXV animal,
half kitten, half lamb, QRU WKH HYHQ VWUDQJHU 2GUDGHN DUH DFWXDO
animals; they do not appear iQUHDOLW\. IQ.DINDVILFWLRQ however,
they are true in their strange, unsettling alterity. The Crossbreed that
Kafka encounters is one such example of absolute otherness, but mind
how the narrator empathises with it:
Perhaps the knife of the butcher would be a release for this animal; but as it is a
legacy I must deny it that. So it must wait until the breath voluntarily leaves its
body, even though it sometimes gazes at me with a look of human understanding,
challenging me to do the right thing of which both of us are thinking. (Kafka
1995: 427)
Many issues are raised in this little text, from the idea of legacy to
the animal gaze both Levinas and Derrida have said a lot about but
for me, the feeling that everyone: creatures, narrator and narrated,
share thoughts and think about death together is most important.
&RPSDUHWKDWWRWKHHQGLQJRI&RHW]HHVThe Lives of Animals. These
texts evoke reality although, as Costello puts it and Mulhall adopts it,
WKH LGHDO RI WKH ZRUG-mirror has shattered irreSDUDEO\ (Mulhall
2009: 163). Despite what referentialist ecocritical convictions might
VXJJHVW&RVWHOORVLPDJHRIWKHEURNHQZRUGPLUURUGRHVQRWH[HmSOLI\ DQ LGOH QLKLOLVP DERXW PHDQLQJ (163) and neither does the
novel as a literary singularity. In WKDW&RHW]HHGHPRQVWUDWHVWKDWHYHQ
274
a tale that takes its starting point from a sheer impossibility [...] might
nevertheless count as a contribution to the project of literary realism
(Mulhall 2009: 166), he proposes a way of reading that does not focus
on mimesis and referentiality but on the readerly ability to enter the
world of words and WKLVZRUOGVembeddedness in the difficult reality
it narUDWHV7KHUHDUH, DV0XOKDOOVXPPDULVHVLWZD\VRIHQYLVLRning reality that are not inconsistent with acknowledging texts as palLPSVHVWV (164).
This readerly configuration of embedded realism and reality, and
its difficulties as staged by the text, constitute its overarching ethical
HIIHFW ZKLOH WKH SURWDJRQLVW LV ZRXQGHG DQG VXIIHUV H[HPSODULO\
from the trauma of posthumanist finitude and exposure, it is a readerly
ZHZKRVXIIHUV for the character. That is to say, the empathetic effectiveness is not grounded on sentimentality and emotional pathos,
but results from a complex negotiation of the abstract narrative forms
of novelistic discourse. As cited above, with regard to the metafictional playing with and the eventual deconstruction of characters in
postmodern literature, James Wood argues that sometimes, in great
ZULWLQJ UHDGHUV DUH H[FLWHG WR IHHl a strange tenderness for [such a
character], aware of something that he does not know, that he is not
real (2009: 86; emphasis orig.). Is this the tenderness that we feel for
Elizabeth Costello? And maybe for the absent animals too? Mulhall
remarks that
5HG3HWHU5HG6DOO\6XOWDQDQG1DJHOVEDWDUHMRLQHGE\DSDQWKHUDMDJXDURU
two, some piglets, and some horses. [Costello] takes the literary reality of each
other to be both continuous and discontinuous with that of other literary animals,
and with that of real animals; they are neither reducible to nor entirely free from
their real-life originals, and always already embedded in a range of intersecting literary genres and the specific predecessors and successors generated within them.
(Mulhall 2009, 122)
In a fine paradox, the non-existence of the fictionalised beings in

the novel points to the actual existence of animal beings outside the
fictional text, both human and nonhuman. And being able to ground a
posthumanist ethical stance on paradox and uncertainty seems a good
result for this reading and a good starting point for further readings
for EnvironMentality.
*****
275
Experiences of uncertainty and woundedness are of course not restricted to the novels I discussed above; in fact, Coetzee seems to be a
master of staging these states. David Lurie in Disgrace (1999) embodies them, and so does Paul Rayment in Slow Man (2005). Remarkably, none of them is completely alone: they share a naturalcultural space with literary companion species, and accordingly, all these
texts could be read in the context of EnvironMentality. In so doing, the
UHDGHU ZRXOG OHDYH WKH UHDOP RI H[SOLFLWO\ HQYLURQPHQWDO SORWV DQG
motifs, but the questions of reality, animality, and ethical or empathetic duties towards others and the woundedness of being would remain.
In this chapter, these concerns have been formulated with regard to
notions of posthumanism. However, I feel myself drawn towards
+DUDZD\V VWDWHPHQW LQ ZKLFK VKH H[SODLQV: , QHYHU wanted to be
SRVWKXPDQ RU SRVWKXPDQLVW (Haraway 2008: 17). Eventually, she
claims: ,DPQRWDSRVWKXPDQLVW,DPZKR,EHFRPHZLWKFRPSDQLRQ
species, who and which make a mess out of categories in the making
of kin and kind (19). Making a mess out of categories seems a
good thing to start with in order to continue this project of hermeneutically engaging with the world, since this process constantly requires us to let go of or redraw boundaries for the sake of new uncertainties. This process relies on the negotiations I outlined in previous
chapters. These negotiations create a constant flux that unsettles and
reconstructs the meaning of an ethical commitment to the world and
it does so despite the sophisticated attempts of Wolfe to disentangle
the vDULRXV WUDGLWLRQV WKDW KDXQW WKH KXPDQLWLHV DQG WR OHW JR RI DQ
LQFRKHUHQFHRUYDJXHQHVV>that] serves to maintain a certain historically, ideologically, and intellectually specific form of subjectivity
while masking it as pluralism (Wolfe 2009b: 568).
I do not think that we can get rid of this vagueness. That is to say, I
do not believe that new distinctions and categories can help much
WKLQN RI :ROIHV QHDW GLYLVLRQV EHWZHHQ SRVWKXPDQLVW KXPDQLVP
humanist humanism SRVWKXPDQLVWSRVWKXPDQLVP DQGhumanist
posthumanism-5) but I believe that we can learn from
WKHZLOGQHVVDURXQGXVWRSHUPLWDPRGHWKDWLVDSSURSULDWHIRU>@
the apprehension of, and participation in, wondrousness (Curry 2008:
64). It is exactly this wondrousness that literature embodies, engenders and constantly refines our senses with, and EnvironMentality
276
thrives on these processes.18 As I argued in the previous chapters, the

neologisms that I came up with as an attempt to momentarily categorise the act-events of fiction are but a frail means to come to terms
with the unspeakability of these events, which rational discourses
VWUXJJOHWRDFFRXQWIRU7RILQGRQeself reading an inventive work,
Attridge summarises this process of experiencing the boundaries of
language,
is to find oneself subject to certain obligations to respect its otherness, to respond to its singularity, to avoid reducing it to the familiar and the utilitarian even
while attempting to comprehend it by relating it to these. (Attridge 2004b: 130)
Notably, these obligations do inform the reading process as I have

DSSURDFKHGLWDERYHEXWWKH\OLNHZLVHLQIRUPWKHFDXWLRXVKHUPHQHuWLFVRIUHDGLQJWKHZRUOGDQGUHVSRQGLQJHWKLFDOO\WRLW In this way,
(postcolonial) ecocriticism can help to defend a new ethical stance on
this earth and the manifold life-worlds that we and countless others
LQKDELW 3DWULFN &XUU\ LQ reluctantly contradicting David
(KUHQIHOGV The Arrogance of Humanism (1981), suggests as a term
for these ontological and ethical entanglements: humanism (Curry
,WLVWUXH, he admits,
that the word and the philosophy have become a hubristic denial of any limits to
human self-aggrandisement, and the worship of technology in this pursuit. [...]
But humanism also [...] implied almost the opposite of its modern meaning: the
need to be humane, including but extending beyond humanity, in order to be fully
human. Nor did humanism entail a denial of human limits and fallibility; again,
quite the opposite. It is at least possible that in the context of ecocentrism, this
original attitude could be recovered. (55)
I agree with everything Curry claims here, and disregarding the

sophistries of concurring terminologies, I argue for a humanism that is
only properly understood if it is understood as thoroughly humane. In
my readings, I have tried to show how this challenge can be addressed
from the side of literary studies, and instead of preselected moral
PHDQV,KDYHFRQFHQWUDWHGRQWKHWH[WVRWKHUness and the alterity they
might succeed in staging. In so doing, I have also addressed various
ecocritical aporias, from the role of science and factual knowledge to
18
While this book was being prepared for publication, I used some of ther arguments developed here in an essay, co-authored with Greg Garrard, on the pedagogical implications of ecocriticism. See Bartosch & Garrard 2013.
277
the impasse of anthropocentric versus ecocentric thinking to the overarching problem of rHDOLW\DQGWKHWUXWKRIILFWLRQ,WKLQNWKDW, now,
these strands can be brought together. And it is with regard to Curry,
ZKRLQIRUPXODWHGIRXUGHVLGHUDWD in literary engagements with
our environments, that I conclude my readings by responding to these
desiderata (without resolving their challenges in any way).
Curry argues firstly IRU D QRWLRQ RI >U@Hality without realism
(2008: 60). I have repeatedly engaged with this idea and argued for a
form of transformative mimesis Moreover, I have shown literary
IRUPWREHKLJKO\FDSDEOHRIOHDGLQJWRWKDWZKLFKLVWREHEHQWWowards the world, because literary meaning ties together form, reader
and world. Thus, my sense of realist writing can indeed be understood
as referring to reality EXWZLWKRXWUHTXLULQJDQ\FRQFHVVLRQVWRWKH
epistemological imperialism characteristic of modern realist essentialLVP LQFOXGLQJ LWV FRQWULEXWLRQ WR PRGHUQ HFRORJLFDO GHVWUXFWLYHQHVV
(Curry 2008: 60).
The next desideratum, writes Curry, is a sense oI>U@HDVRQZLWKRXW
rationalism (60). This idea, elaborated upon by Val Plumwood
(2002) and Martha C. Nussbaum (2001), for instance, is negotiated in
literature, too. As literary texts reintegrate various discourses and thus
engender a form of dialogicity, the paternalistic and coercive entrapments of rationalism can be successfully dodged. The negative capability of EnvironMentality allows us to accept that we may not be
able to know nature, or animals, but that we can learn how to relate to
them. The same applies to the next desideratum identified by Curry:
1DWXUHZLWKRXWQDWXUDOism (61); a similar point is made by Timothy
Morton (2007).
0RVW LQWHUHVWLQJ IRU PH KRZHYHU LV &XUU\V IRXUWK GHVLGHUDWum:
+XPDQLW\ZLWKRXt humanism (Curry 2008: 61). Conceding the need
for flashy slogans, Curry here contradicts his own argument for huPDQLVPEXWKHTXLFNO\UHYLVHVKXPDQLVPE\VWDWLQJWKDWKXPDQLVP
is, at heart, a perfectly legitimate interest [...]. The problem is, of
course, the bloated techno-humanism, so very far from humane, that
now functions as the ideology of modernity (61). And it does not
matter whether a rescue of the term is possible or not as long as we
understand the exposures literature helps us to experience and take on
the challenge of EnvironMentality. Our humane-ism WKHQ FDQ JR
ZLWKDpost- or without it. In any caseZHDUHILQDOO\DFFHGLQJWRD
thinking [...] that thinks the absence of the name as something other
than a privation (Derrida 2008: 48).
10. Towards and Beyond a Conclusion

There is one passage in The Lives of Animals that epitomises the problem of ecocriticism understood as an HQYLURQPHQWDOLVWSUDFWLFH. It is
a conversation between &RVWHOORVVRQ, John, and his mother:
'R \RX UHDOO\ EHOLHYH 0RWKHU WKDW SRHWU\ FODVVHV DUH JRLQJ WR FORVH GRZQ WKH
VODXJKWHUKRXVHV"
1R
7KHQZK\GRLW" (EC 103/TLoA 58)
Elizabeth struggles with a direct answer and instead affirms that she
just does not want to remain silent. Although she believes that there
are no bounds to WKHV\PSDWKHWLFLPDJLQDWLRQ (80/35), her helpless
wounded affirmation that she simply wants to save her soul reveals
KHUV\PSDWKHWLFFDSDFLW\ZKLOHVLPXOtaneously exposing its intellecWXDO IODZV, as Head puts it (2009: 83) $ ODQJXDJH D IRUP RI
WKRXJKW 'LDPRQG VXPPDULVHV WKLV LPSDVVH FDQQRW ZH PD\ EH
told) get things right or wrong, fit or fail to fit reality; it can only be
more or less useful (2008: 78). $QG DOWKRXJK WKLVFRPLQJ DSDUW RI
thought and reality belongs to flesh and blood (78), one may wonder
about the power of fiction to emplot realities, and ask whether uncertainty and the challenges to understanding that I have outlined in this
study suffice as an ecocritical answer to the aporias discussed in previous chapters and to environmental crises in general.
6XVLH2%ULHQLQDGLVFXVVLRQRIWKHFRQQHFWLRQbetween literature
classes and environmentalist action, remarks on various explanations
given by prominent ecocritics. She cites Cheryll Glotfelty, who exSODLQV WKDW DV HQYLURQPHQWDO SUREOHPV FRPSRXQG ZRUN DV XVXDO
seems unconscionably frivolous (quoteG LQ 2%ULHQ VHH *ORtfelty 1996: xxi). She also refers to Glen A. Love, who mentions a
general ethical and environmentalist consciousness within the English
departments DQGDVNVKRZDUHZHWRDFFRXQWIRURXUJHQHUDOIDLOXUH
WR DSSO\ DQ\ VHQVH RI WKLV DZDUHQHVV WR RXU GDLO\ ZRUN" (quoted in
2%ULHQ VHH DOVR /RYH 227). While these scholars
280
explain their individual, PRUDO PRWLYHV 2%ULHQ LV QRW VDWLVILHG 6KH
criticises the fact WKDW/RYHOLNHRWKHUHFRFULWLFVOHDYHVXQH[SODLQHG
the precise mechanism by which the work of individual scholars, refracted through the profession of literary studies, might effect changes
on the political level 2%ULHQ %XWLVWKHUHVXFKDprecise mechaQLVP"
In considering the sometimes confusing usage of ecological vocabulary and discussing it with regard to its aesthetic FRQWH[W2%ULHQ
concludes that the ideological revamping of scientific vocabulary for
WKHVDNHRIOLWHUDU\DQDO\VHVVRXQG>V@DELWOLNHMXPSHd-up versions of
New Criticism (181). In fact, in discussing the hermeneutics of
EnvironMentality, I have referred to many theoretical notions from the
same context that the New Criticism referred to. However, in my argument, I have not spoken for the autonomy of a certain corpus of
WH[WVQRUGR,SUHVFULEHDQ\OLWHUDU\IHDWXUHVDVJRRGDWWKHFRVWRI
other forms of writing. Nevertheless, my discussion could also be
understood as one of literary quality but not in a canonical, prescriptive sense. It should rather be understood in relation with the potential
of language and literature to make us aware of the world of words in
which we live (see Bartosch 2011 and Bartosch, forthcoming). The
interpretive negotiation of this world of words, at least for us human
DQLPDOVLVWLHGWRWKHUHDOZRUOGLQPDQ\ ZD\VDQGWRVWXG\WKHVH
ways is what constitutes ecocriticism for me.
I agree with Attridge that
[t]he effects of the literariness of certain linguistic works [...] are not predictable
and do not arise from planning [...] there can be no guarantee that the alterity
brought into the world by a particular literary or other artistic work will be beneficial. (Attridge 2004b: 60)
This is why ecocriticism cannot talk about the instrumental value of

literature; in fact there is, as Attridge goes on to sayQRWHYHQDJXDrantee that the future will have a place for the literary (62). But it
seems certain that for now, by responding to a literary text as literatureP\SOHDVXUHDQGSURILWFRPHIURPWKHH[SHULHQFHRIDQHYHQWRI
referring, from a staging of referentiality, not from any knowledge I
acquire (95-6). Instead of knowledge, which may lead to the recognition of predetermined moral convictions or ecological concepts within
the literary work, EnvironMentality means the ability to detect and
formulate a vision.
Towards and Beyond a Conclusion
281
This is why close readings, even if they do not make you a better
person, as Timothy Morton notes, can help in the environmental context (see Garrard 2010d; Morton 2012) :K\ QRW WU\ WR EH VORZHU
WKDQWKRXLQRUGHUWRRXWGRWKHWRUWRLVHRIFORVHUHDGLQJDQGWDNHSDUW
LQWKHDQWL-race toward DQDHVWKHWLFVWDWHRIPHGLWDWLYHFDOP (Morton
2007: 12) as long as these meditations are situated in a hermeneutic
context that ultimately seeks to engender a connection of world,
reader and text through the openness to alterity? It might lead to
EnvironMentality, and it would be an environmentally oriented versioQ RI ZKDW -DPHV :RRG FDOOV WKH GLDOHFWLFDO WXWRULQJ of reading:
/LWHUDWXUHPDNHVXVEHWWHUQRWLFHUVRIOLIHZHJHWWRSUDFWLVHRQOLIH
itself; which in turn makes us better readers of detail in literature;
which in turn makes us better readers of life (J. Wood 2009: 53).
I have argued for an interpretive attitude that focuses on general
processes of making sense of works of art just as well as the individual reading experience in particular. Now I want to try a first concluVLRQNHHSLQJ/DZUHQFH%XHOOVFODLPLQPLQGWKDWDJRRGERRN>@
should open up its subject, not shut it down. Conclusions are chronically hamstrung by the temptations to reach closure or attempt prophecy in the narroZVHQVHRISUHGLFWLRQ (Buell 2008: 128). Obviously, I
am not interested in such forms of closure since I conceive of the ecocritical approach as a hermeneutic one that can never be finished
completely, just as it can never reach a certain point of knowledge.
Instead, it is an approach that constantly questions its own assumptions, its own hermeneutic situation, and constantly reassesses its prejudgements. Instead of concluding, or finalising my outline of such an
approach, I therefore want to emphasise again that I conceive of
EnvironMentality as a SHUSHWXDO WRZDUGV 5LPPRQ-Kenan 2002:
149). So what are we waiting for?
10.1 Can Books Save the World?

No, they cannot. But more important still is that they do not have to.
This is why none of the readings presented and none of the books
discussed with regard to problems and discourses in the extraGLHJHWLF world can be connected to this world by virtue of the solutions the books propose. The whole idea of EnvironMentality must not
be understood as an approach to readings that lead to an environmentalist consciousness in the readers of fiction. InVWHDG RI WKH precise
282
mechanism that turns art and exegeses into environmentalist action,

the hermeneutics of EnvironMentality entail negotiations of meaning
DQGH[SORUDWLRQVRIOLWHUDWXUHVSRWHQWLDOWRPDNHXVH[SHULHQFHRWKHrness. I am not inferring a direct influence on social or political
spheres; I am looking for ways to PDSDYHQXHVRIWKLQNing and feeling (Attridge 2004b: 59).
6XVLH 2%ULHQV ZD\ RI SXWWLQJ WKH TXHVWLRQ DERYH KHU GHPDQG
WKDWWKURXJKWKHSURIHVVLRQ>ZH@PLJKWHIIHFWFKDQJHVRQWKHSROLWLFDO
OHYHO (2007: 181), shows a kind of causal thinking that does not work
in literary studies. The prediction of political or individual change
presupposes laws (of the psyche, behaviour, political processes), and it
eventually also presupposes empiricism, without which such predictions are not possible. But empiricism and laws are issues of the natural sciences, while
[a]rt and literature can be assessed, but not predicted, and one cannot even anticipate the multiple relationships they contain. Prediction aims ultimately at mastering something, whereas mapping strives to discern something. (Iser 2007: 5)
7KH QRWLRQV RI mastering on the one hand, and mapSLQJ RQ
the other, notably fit both the postcolonial and the ecocritical context
RI WKLV VWXG\ 0DVWHULQJ QDWXUH DQG WKXV DOVR mastering human
QDWXUH, is something that science critique has repeatedly related to the
empirical and often mechanistic approach of science. It might be good
to get away from the objectives of mastery and prediction. Without
putting all science under general suspicion, we must however understand that any humanistic, scholarly inquiry, or mapping, as Iser so
fittingly calls it, differs from science by virtue of its underlying prinFLSOHVDQGJRDOVWKXVFUHDWLQJDYLWDOGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQWKHVFLHQFHV
and the humanities. [...] The former [establishes] realities, and the
latter [outlines] patterns (6). I have therefore argued, in Patrick
&XUU\V ZRUGV IRU WKH DSSUHKHQVLRQ RI DQG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ ZRnGURXVQHVV E\ ZKLFK WKH QXPHURXV QDUUDWLYH SDWWHUQV EXW DOVR WKHLU
FRQQHFWLRQWRWKHWUXWKRIILFWLRQFDQEHGLVFXVVHG (2008: 64).
I have thus tried to show how the patterns that could be discerned
relate to the hermeneutic task of understanding the world around us
but also within us. I have sought to open up the discourse (or rather
contribute to it) of how we might read texts in order to learn something about the way we comprehend the world; and this is quite different from making predictions about which books might affect people in
283
some way or other. One of the crucial elements in this exploration is

the examinatiRQ RI WHUPV OLNH XV DQG WKHP :KLOH SRVWFRORQLDO
studies and, consequently, postcolonial ecocriticism are right in disFDUGLQJ WKH GLFKRWRP\ RI WKH :HVW versus WKH UHVW P\ IRFXV RQ
reader responses and reception aesthetics has shown that this dichotomy inevitably affects the reading experience. Not least because the
texts under scrutiny are part of a global cultural market and move
within a literary field that Huggan claLPVWREHDQDOWHULW\LQGXVWU\
(2001: vii; see also Gurr 2010b), this tension had to be addressed repeatedly. In the end, a seemingly neuWUDOFRQFHSWVXFKDVWKHimplied
reader FDPH WR SRLQW WR WKH DPELJXRXV if fruitful challenge to
understand that the reading experiences I have described were my
own.
I comment so extensively on the distinction between mastery and
mapping because the difference between scientific and humanistic
scholarly questioning in ecocriticism has been blurred for two reasons.
Firstly, it is the ecocritical interest, and possible hope, in science that
has led to an increased use of scientific terminology, but also to an
orientation towards formulating scientific objectives. And secondly,
there is a general drift in literary studies, or the humanities as a whole,
that follows up on developments in the political and social world, and
these developments seek to ascribe direct economic and socio-political
YDOXHWRUHVHDUFK$OWKRXJKLWLVDV$WWULGJHSXWVLWDWKUHDWWR much
that is valuable in humanistic learning (2004b: 7), many scholars
adopt such an instrumentalising attitude to literature in order to justify
their studies. Paradoxically, however, the empirical reader response
has nothing to do with the merits of literary studies in (postcolonial)
ecocriticism.
Instead of data, we have possibilities, layers of meaning; and in order to disFRYHUWKHVHOD\HUVZHQHHGQRWmaster the books we read.
We could engage in the processes of understanding art and enter a
dialoJXH ZLWK WKH OLWHUDU\ ZRUN +RZ UHDGHUV SURFHVV QDUUDWLYH LV
essentially an empirical question that can only be answered by sysWHPDWLFREVHUYDWLRQRIDFWXDOUHDGHUVUHDGLQJDFWXDOWH[WV (Bortolussi
& Dixon 2003: 13) this is how Marisa Bortolussi and Peter Dixon
express their inWHUHVWLQ3V\FKRQDUUDWRORJ\ a form of narratological
studies based on empirical observation. I would argue that quite the
opposite is true: reading and studying literature opens avenues
of thinking and, thus, of seeing the world differently. If we want to
284
understand the potential of literature the event of fiction, as it were

the objectives must be clear.
In the amazing complexities that constitute an individual hermeneutic horizon, fictional texts can help to configure EnvironMentality
through various means. In this study, I began by reading the emplotment of natural environments, and the connection of this environment
to the act of narrating the world using the example of $PLWDY*KRVKV
The Hungry Tide. I engaged with the concept of the world-as-text and
outlined an interpretive process that turns rhetorical devices into
environmental tropes. Likewise, however, this process of interpretation has exposed a number of gaps and tensions, which in turn became
the focus of interpretation. The intertextual entanglements a kind of
literary equivalent of BDUU\&RPPRQHUVeverything is connected to
everything else and the moments of unresolved tension in the text
were read with regard to their dialogic effect. This pointed to the necessity of expanding formalist investigation to notions of reader reVSRQVHDQGDKHUPHQHXWLFTXHVWLRQLQJRIWKHGLVWDQFHVHPSORWWHGLQ
postcolonial fiction.
From there, I went on to discuss =DNHV 0GDV The Heart of Redness with the help of BakhtLQVFRQFHSWRIWKHFKURQRWRSHDQG,FULWLFally engaged with ideas of communal understanding and becoming
the text, which seems to offer a solution, I argued, deconstructs this
very solution by means of its formal composition, thus emplotting a
critical stance on solutions and forms of alleged understanding. I then
supplemented my critique of becoming by reading The Whale Caller
as a narrative of tragicomic border crossings that expose the impossibility of becoming-animal and the dangers of attempted human transgressions into animal umwelten.
7KHDQLPDOwas central to the next chapter too. I argued there that
in order to come to terms with the concept of companion species and
approaches to animality as proposed by critical animal studies, a look
at the palimpsestic nature of fiction can help. Instead of an attempt at
JLYLQJYRLFHWRDQLPDOVDQGLQVWHDGRIWU\LQJWRVHHWKHDQLPDOEehind the fiction, I was thus able to bear the silence of literary animals
and instead look for the intertextual human-animal communities that
WH[WVHQJHQGHU0\UHDGLQJRI<DQQ0DUWHOV Life of Pi showed how
narrating animals and animality can thus be approached, and I complemented this reading by engaging with the problems and pitfalls of
such an approach by referring tR0DUWHOVBeatrice and Virgil.
285
I then moved on by relating postnatural environments and dystopian visions to a discussion of the role of narratives by reading MargaUHW$WZRRGVOryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood. The rendering of temporal and environmental perception could be connected to
the idea of a humanimal identity that is embedded in the deep-time
processes of evolution but that is likewise bound to the linguistic
ZRUOGRIQDUUDWLYH7KXVZKLOHDSSHDULQJWREHJUHHQG\VWRSLDsWKH
texts could be shown to formulate a remarkable form of ecocritique,
that is, a self-critical questioning of their ideological context. Again,
intertextuality and sequentialisation complemented the semantics of
the text, and the utopian potential of literature could be linked to the
task of envisioning ways of monitoring and re-creating the world if
RQO\E\JDUGHQLQJ and telling stories.
Ultimately, these discussions brought me to notions of posthumanLVP,QP\UHDGLQJRI-0&RHW]HHVThe Lives of Animals and Elizabeth Costello, the question of ethics as well as the role of reality in
fiction were negotiated. From there, I came to a reassessment of
%XHOOVFODLPIRUPLPHVLV, which I still find to be a crucial analytical
concept inasmuch as it points to the necessity of incorporating the
world and its reality into our cultural practice of reading fiction. However, there are many worlds, and there are many ways of emplotting
UHDOLW\ DQG WKH DSSURDFKHV WR GRLQJ VR DUH VXEMHFW WR FRQVWDQW
change. Thus, I have arJXHGIRUDUHDGLQJSUDFWLFHRItransformative
mimesis and for the ability of seemingly avant-garde, self-referential
texts to convey to us D VHQVH RI WKH UHDO, which, ultimately, can be
integrated into the concept of EnvironMentality.
In all these readings, I have engaged with textual form in order to
read literature as an aesthetic rather than an instrumentalist discourse,
and this has ultimately helped us to understand the notion of form
without formalism form and content become one in the process of
negotiating literary meaning. This meaning always points to the world
it does not save the world but it helps us envision it with more alert
eyes.
10.2 From Ego to Eco and Back Again:

The Challenge of Reading the World
The almost traditional account of the role of literature which sees literary art as an experience and which defines literary texts with regard
286
to the negotiation of the world that they emplot, gains new and pivotal
relevance in the context of environmental crises. But it also unsettles
RXU LGHDV RI VROYLQJ D SUREOHP does the seemingly imperative
nature of ecological thought benefit or suffer from the slowness of
close reading? We have to ask ourselves what it means to understand
reading as a crucial activity although it is in no way certain what the
result will be. SLQFH HQYLURQPHQWDO FRQWHQW GRHV QRW JXDUDQWHH Dn
ecocritically successful reading, any reading of the world can lead to
unprecedented and un-didactical results, as Attridge claims (see
2004b: 60).
The ambiguity and uncertainty of such readings is a good argument
for ecocriticism to attend to various literary forms, concepts and artistic engagements with the world. It is also the reason why in ecocritical
research, anti-theoretical renaissances of realism and ecomimesis and
postmodern-poststructuralist contentions exist side by side in a state
WKDW 7LPRWK\ 0RUWRQ GHVFULEHV DV SRVWPRGHUQ UHWUR
happily co-existing in what one may wish to call an overly diverse
cultural ecosystem. Ursula Heise comments on this diversity when she
proposes that ecocriticism expand its range of interest further and
include studies of contemporary nature writing such as Bill McKibEHQVThe End of Nature RU7LP)ODQQHU\VThe Weather Makers, all
RI ZKLFK KDYH DUJXDEO\ JHQHUDWHG PRUH SXEOLF DWWHQWLRQ WR DQG Gebate about environmental issues than the poems of Gary Snyder or Joy
Harjo (Heise 2010b: 29). However, she does not argue for a mere
expansion of interest but describes how ecocriticism as VFKRODUO\
HQYLURQPHQWDOLVP WKDW LV VFKRODUVKLS WKDW KDV DQ DJHQGD (see
Cohen 2004: 10), should bring into its focus forms other than fictional
writing.
Although the success story of ecocriticism started in departments
of English, and thus arguably with the study of literature, ecocritical
perspectives now inform science critique, philosophy and the studies
RISRSXODUFXOWXUH+HLVHVUHFHQWDGYDQFHLQWRWKH epic realm of red
lists and biodiversity databases (2010c) stands as impressive proof of
her WKHVLVWKDWDQHFRFULWLFDOUH-engagement with biological and ecoORJLFDO VFLHQFH PD\ ZHOO FKDOOHQJH WKH FRQYHQWLRQV RI OLWHUDU\ DQG
cultural studies and remap English from the ecocritical perspective
(Heise 2010b: 32). Understood this way, the ecocritical perspective
engenders an understanding of how rhetoric and narrative are informed by scientific insights and how scientific insights are themselves influenced by narrative and rhetoric.
287
Nevertheless, I think that we need fiction, and we still need to

study fiction just as much. The role of literature and, as I pointed out
briefly, even the role of literary quality, need to be theorised, and I
now want to reflect on the points I formulated earlier with regard to
what has been said here about the emergence of EnvironMentality.
The texts I have discussed in this study have all, in their distinct ways,
negotiated dichotomies and emplotted the tensions that accompany
such negotiations. They have opened up intertextual fields of literary
dialogues, and they have ultimately FRQYH\HG D FHUWDLQ WUXWK RI ILcWLRQ thaWLVWKH\KDYHRSHQHGZD\VWRZDUGVWKHUHDO7KHLUWUDQsformative mimesis thus engenders events of fiction, and I am inclined
to believe that this has something to do with their potential to create
uncertainties and challenge established ways of thinking by repeatedly
suggesting that we choose an interpretive roDGQRWWDNHQ The texts
might have been moving, entertaining and altogether enjoyable, but
most importantly, they effectively disturbed ordinary ways of thinking.
This is quite different from VRPH HQYLURQPHQWDO WH[WV ZKHUH
HQYLURQPHQWDO LV VKRUWKDQG IRU GLGDFWLFDO DQG PRUDOLVW HDVLO\ Xnmasked eco-pamphlets. Zapf remarks on this, too, and as argued
above, his model of cultural HFRORJ\ UHMHFWV WKH plain realism and
the claim to eco-correctness of some of the earlier objects of ecocritical study in favour of complex textual challenges to our imagination
(Zapf 2006a: 2; Goodbody 1998). The texts I read in this study foster
such disturbances and challenges, and it is in this context that (postcolonial) ecocriticism needs a discussion of literary quality not in
terms of a revival of new-critical prescriptiveness but because the
crisis of the imagination needs good texts. Literature, William Paulson
argues,
is a discursive form and an archive that is out of step with technocratic modernity.
It cannot therefore supply that modernity and its political institutions with reassuring narratives or metanarratives to live by; it can only perturb them as a kind of
noise. (Paulson 1988: 181)
In order for this noise to be heard, however, people need to be listening. The texts that at the same time should perturb our ways of thinking and be an aesthetic pleasure must possess the potential of literary
singularity they must be able to become an event of meaning. However, I have shown in this study that the question of quality cannot be
DQVZHUHG E\ ORRNLQJ IRU WH[WXDO HQYLURQPHQWDOLW\ WKDW LV WH[WXDO
288
traits that guarantee an environmentalist effect. Instead, I have been

looking for challenging pieces of fiction whose tone and texture allow
negotiations of EnvironMentality.
There are many ways of dealing with such an idea of literary quality. Let me therefore simply name a few in order to outline the possible directions of this discussion. Perhaps the most interesting, because
it is the most precise yet still open, statement comes from Wolfgang
,VHUZKRPDLQWDLQVWKDWQRUHDGLQJFDQHYHUH[KDXVWWKHIXOOSRWHnWLDO RI D WH[W (1974: 280). He certainly has in mind a more closely
GHILQHGQRWLRQRIWH[WWKDQWKDWZKLFKKDVJDLQHGSURPLQHQFHLQWKH
wake of poststructuralist theories, ZKHUHWKHLGHDWKDWHYHU\WKLQJLVD
WH[WKDVEHHQLQFRUUHFWO\UHSHDWHG,VHULPSOLFLWO\restricts the writing
he is concerned with to good writing when he elaborates on the fact
WKDWDOLWHUDU\WH[WPXVWWKHUHIRUHEHFRQFHLYHGLQVXFKDZD\WKDWLW
ZLOOHQJDJHWKHUHDGHUVLPDJLQDWLRQLQWKHWDVNRIZRUNLQJWKLQJVRXW
for himself, for reading is only a pleasure when it is active and creative (275).
For him, the text is an arWZRUNWKDWLVUHDOLVHGLQLWVvirtual space
between the artistic pole of intentional sentence correlatives and the
aesthetic pole of readerly realisation, the descriptive consequence of
ZKLFKLVWKDWWKHWH[WPD\HLWKHUQRWJRIDUHQRXJKRUPD\JRWRRIDU
so we might say that boredom and overstrain form the boundaries
EH\RQGZKLFKWKHUHDGHUZLOOOHDYHWKHILHOGRISOD\ (275). Without
directly positioning this idea in the contH[W RI OLWHUDU\ TXDOLW\ ,VHUV
phenomenological approach to the reading process thus entails an idea
of a good text in terms of its balance between expectations that are
either fulfilled or disappointed, and the readerly cooperation and active status in the reading of a text. Thus, he posits his theory of the
implied reader in a decidedly hermeneutic context a context ecocriticism may well benefit from since the role of literature in the mergLQJRIKRUL]RQVWRXVH*DGDPHUVWHUPLQRORJ\LVSUHFLVHO\GHVcribed.
That literature can thus be identified and discussed in its relation to
social practices, ethics and, of course, the processes of understanding
and shaping discourses has been noted by Hubert Zapf (e.g. 2001),
whose literary-ecological model of cultural ecology builds directly
upon the findings of Iser (amongst others).
More formalist and descriptive approaches may focus less on the
virtuality of the written artwork and more on identifying certain elements thDWFRQVWLWXWHJRRGZULWLQJDOORIZKLFK,KDVWHQWRDGGDUH
subject to change and must be understood as reactions to former
289
artefacts of cultural production, a process that the Russian Formalism

has described as literary evolutionVHH6WULHGWHU71b: xxiv). Basically, the formalist definition of estrangement and literariness is
grounded on such models of aesthetisation and innovation which underlie perpetual change, and thus are already conceived as reactions to
existing modes of perception. As literary form develops, these perceptive modes are deconstructed or at least opposed by new ways of seeing the world a cultural challenge that the Formalists argued would
result in innovative texts. Innovation has thus become one of the most
important aspects of any definition of good writing, and together with
the idea of a challenging of existing reader positions and expectations,
this feature makes for another non-static aspect of quality. Needless to
say that this idea becomes more challenging but also more exciting
in the context of an increasingly globalised world literature, as, for
instance, Michael Niblett (2012) and James Graham et al. (2012) have
recently argued.
,Q WKH ODWHVW WUDQVODWLRQ RI NORYVNLV Theory of Prose, Benjamin
Sher explains the neologism HQVWUDQJHPHQW NORYVNyVostraniene,
KH DUJXHV LV D QHRORJLVP WRR DQG QHLWKHU HVWUDQJHPHQW QRU GeIDPLOLDULVDWLRQILWWKHFRQQRWDWLYHTXDOLW\RILW,WLVDSUHWW\IDLUDssumption, he claims,
that Shklovsky speaks of ostraniene as a process or act that endows an object or
LPDJHZLWKVWUDQJHQHVVE\UHPRYLQJLWIURPWKHQHWZRUNRIFRQYHQWLRQDOIRrmulaic, stereotypical perceptions and linguistic expressions. (Sher 2009: xviiixix)1
However, he rejects the translation estrangement as too negative

because by making things strange it seems that we might be losing
sight of the world and its objects. This seems to be what Buell thought
too when he advocated the referentiality of literary mimesis. However,
klovsky has already shown that literature and thus, ostraniene is
supSRVHGWRPDNHWKHVWRQHVWRQ\ (2009: 10).
Defamiliarisation 6KHUJRHVRQWRDUJXHLVVLPSO\GHDGZURQJ
EHFDXVH LW LV QRW D WUDQVLWLRQ IURP WKH IDPLOLDU WR WKH XQNQRZQ
but a move that compOLFDWHVRXUSHUFHSWXDOSURFHVVLQWKHULFKXVHRI
metaphors, similes and a host of other figures of speech (2009: xix).
He therefore proposes WKHZRUGHQVWUDQJHPHQWEHFDXVHLWFRPELQHV
1
Sher explains that ostraniene is a comSRXQGRI WKH 5XVVLDQ ZRUGV IRU strange
and WRVKRYHDVLGH
290
WKHSRVLWLYHFRQQRWDWLRQRIWKHSUHIL[HQ-DQGWKHHVWUDQJLQJFRXnterpoint. In fact, this is what EnvironMentality is all about: reading is

supposed to make things harder to see, truth harder to grasp only to
finally restore world and meaning in the act of cautious hermeneutic
LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ$JRRGJUHHQWH[WDFFRrding to this notion, is one that
PD\OHDGXVWRDYLVLRQLQVWHDGRIDOORZLQJIRUPHUHUHFRJQLtion
only (klovsky 2009: 10).
By this definition, the idea of quality becomes crucial for ecocriticism. It is found in a form of realism, not in any generic sense but
in terms of an ability, via the reader, to connect world and narrative.
Wood proposes that we UHSODFH WKH DOZD\V SUREOHPDWLF ZRUG UHDlLVP ZLWK WKH PXFK PRUH SUREOHPDWLF ZRUG WUXWK (J. Wood 2009:
180), and in this study, I have tried to do so. Although any textual
WUXWKFHUWDLQO\WHQGVWRUHPDLQHOXVLYHif one attempts to describe or
define it, readers seem to agree that literature is capable of capturing
certain aspects of the human condition: texts have the potential to help
LQ WKH LQILQLWH SURFHVV RI HVWDEOLVKLQJ WUXH PHDQLQJ, as Gadamer
puts it (1994: 303). This process, which negotiates ecocentric and
egocentric perspectives, the role of science and the alterity expressed
in literature, will, by opening up means of engaging with and relating
to the other, eventually lead back to the reader. This is not to say that
WKLQNLQJEH\RQGWKHKXPDQLVDOWRJHWKHULPSRVVLEOH,QVWHDGLWHmphasises our responsibility to negotiate what it means to be human in a
postnatural, posthumanist world of environmental crises. Humaneness is inseparable from EnvironMentality.
7KH SRWHQWLDO RI ILFWLRQ WR KHOS XV UHWXUQ WR WKH HJR ZLWKLQ WKH
HFRLVLQIDFWH[DFWO\ZKDWLVQHHGHGLIHFRFULWLFLVPLVWRDGGUHVVWKe
crisis of imagination that is related to environmental crises. So it is not
DW DOO WKH DHVWKHWLFV RI UHOLQTXLVKPHQW (Buell 1995: 168; see also
Head 1998: 33) that we should focus on, and certainly it is not any
conveyance of scientific or scholarly insights into the environment
that should be playing a part in our readings of narratives either. Instead, EnvironMentality integrates the human perspectives of both
writing and reading and at the same time, it helps position the reading
subject in a world that consists of both cultural signification and natural realities.
The key to EnvironMentality is literary experience. It is ecocentric
because it negotiates reader, text, and world. However, it is also egocentric because it also always links back to personal interpretive decisions and to the reading subject at the heart of the hermeneutic
291
process. It incorporates scientific notions and ethical convictions

without being constrained by scientific reductionism and philosophical systematics. It comes into its own in the moment when words fail
to describe the event that is taking pODFH WKH DFW-event of fiction
(Attridge 2004b: 108), and when the singularity of literature allows
for a temporary relief from the aporias of environmental(ist) thinking.
Environmental crisis requires an informed, active and practical reaction, and humanity had probably better be quick or dead. However, the basis for such reactions is an ethical understanding of the
YHU\ FULVLV LWVHOI DQG RQHV RZQ HQPHVKPHQW ZLWK WKH ZRUOG ZH DUe
LQWHUHVWHG LQ VDYLQJ 7KH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI OLWHUDWXUH WR HWKLFV LV SUoIRXQG*HRIIUH\+DUSKDPZULWHV
but indirect and difficult to specify. [...] The ethical contribution made by literature concerns not instruction or specific guidance but the cultivation and exercise
of habits of mind or models of understanding. (Harpham 2010: 195)
This process takes time, and the outcome of it is less than clear. But
there is hardly any time to waste VROHWVUHDG
Bibliography
Primary References:
Atwood, Margaret. 2003. Oryx and Crake. New York: Anchor Books.
. 2009. The Year of the Flood. New York et al: Doubleday.
Coetzee, J.M. 1999. The Lives of Animals. Princeton: Princeton UP.
. 2003. Elizabeth Costello. London: Vintage.
Ghosh, Amitav. 2004. The Hungry Tide. London: HarperCollins.
.DIND)UDQ]>@$&URVVEUHHG$6SRUWLQ Franz Kafka. The Complete
Stories. (ed. Nahum N. Glatzer) (tr. Willa & Edwin Muir). New York: Schocken
Books. 426-7.
Martel, Yann. 2009 [2001]. Life of Pi. Edinburgh et al: Canongate.
. 2010. Beatrice and Virgil. Edinburgh et al.: Canongate.
Mda, Zakes. 2003 [2000]. The Heart of Redness. New York: Picador.
. 2005. The Whale Caller. New York: Picador.
Swift, Jonathan 2005 [1726, 1735]. GulliYHUV 7UDYHOV. New York et al.: Pocket
Books.
Woolf, Virginia. 2002 [1927]. To the Lighthouse. Ware: Wordsworth.
Secondary References:
Adamson, Joni, Mei Mei Evans and Rachel Stein (eds). 2002. The Environmental
Justice Reader. Politics, Poetics and Pedagogy. Tucson: U of Arizona P.
Agamben, Giorgio. 2004. The Open. Man and Animal (trans. Kevin Attell). Stanford:
Stanford UP.
Ahmad, Aijaz. 2008 [1992]. In Theory. Classes, Nations, Literatures. London/New
York: Verso.
Ahrens, Rdiger and Laurenz Volkmann (eds). 1996. Why Literature Matters. Theories and Functions of Literature. Heidelberg: Winter.
$KXMD1HHO3RVWFRORQLDO&ULWLTXHLQD0XOWLVSHFLHV:RUOGLQPMLA 124(2):
556-63.
Anderson, Benedict. 1991 [1983]. Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin
and Spread of Nationalism. London and New York: Verso.
$UPVWURQJ 3KLOLS 7KH 3RVWFRORQLDO $QLPDO LQ Society and Animals 10(4):
414-19.
. 2008. What Animals Mean in the Fiction of Modernity. London and New York:
Routledge.
294
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin. 2002 [1989]. The Empire Writes
Back. Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures. London and New York:
Routdlegde.
Attridge, Derek. 2004a. J.M. Coetzee and the Ethics of Reading. Chicago/London: U
of Chicago P.
. 2004b. The Singularity of Literature. London and New York: Routledge.
$JDLQVW$OOHJRU\LQ3R\QHU (2006): 63-82.
Attwell, David. 1993. J.M. Coetzee. South Africa and the Politics of Writing. Berkeley: U of California P.
7KH/LIHDQG7LPHVRI(OL]DEHWK&RVWHOOR-0&RHW]HHDQGWKH3XEOLF
6SKHUHLQ3R\QHU (2006): 25-41.
Atwood, Margaret. 2004. Survival. A Thematic Guide to Canadian Fiction. Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart.
3HUIHFW 6WRUPV :ULWLQJ Oryx and Crake. 2Q OLQH DW
http://oryxandcrake.co.uk/perfectstorm.asp (consulted 03.02.2011).
Baker, Steve. 2002. The Postmodern Animal. London: Routledge.
:KDW'RHV%HFRPLQJ-$QLPDO/RRN/LNH"LQ%DNHU67-98.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays (ed. Michael
Holquist) (trans. Caryl Emerson). Austin: U of Texas P.
7KH3UREOHPRI&RQWHQW0DWHULDODQG)RUPLQ9HUEDO$UWLQArt and
Answerability. Early Philosophical Essays by M.M. Bakhtin (eds Michael Holquist and Vadim Liapunow). Austin: U of Texas P: 257-325.
%DUNHU'HUHN*UHHQ)LHOGV(FRFULWLFLVPLQ6RXWK$IULFDLQ9RONPDQQHWDO
(2010): 11-27.
Barthes, Roland. 1989. The Rustle of Language (trans. Richard Howard). Berkeley
and Los Angeles: U of California P.
%DUWRVFK 5RPDQ Call of the Wild DQG WKH (WKLFV RI 1DUUDWLYH 6WUDWHJLHV LQ
Ecozon@. European Journal of Literature and Environment 1(2): 87-96.
(FRFULWLFLVP DQG WKH 3UREOHP RI /LWHUDU\ 4XDOLW\ LQ Green Letters.
Studies in Ecocriticism 14: 98-103.
IRUWKFRPLQJ/LWHUDU\4XDOLW\DQGWKH(WKLFVRI5HDGLQJ6RPH7KRXJKWVRQ
Literary Evolution and the Fiction of Margaret Atwood, Ilija Trojanow and Ian
0F(ZDQ
& Greg Garrard. 2012. The Function of Criticism. A Response to William
0DMRUDQG$QGUHZ0F0XUU\V(GLWRULDOLQJournal of Ecocriticism 5(1): 6pp.
Bate, Jonathan. 1991. Romantic Ecology. Wordsworth and the Environmental Tradition. London and New York: Routledge.
. 2000. The Song of the Earth. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP.
)RUHZRUGLQ&RXSH>@[YLL
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Collected Essays on Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chicago: U of Chicago P.
%DXGULOODUG-HDQ6LPXODFUDDQG6LPXODWLRQVLQ Selected Writings (ed. Mark
Poster). Palo Alto: Stanford UP: 166-84.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Beck, Ulrich. 1999. World Risk Society. Cambridge and Malden: Blackwell.
Beer, Gillian. 1989. 'DUZLQV3ORWV(YROXWLRQDU\1DUUDWLYHLQ'DUZLQ*HRUJH(OLRW
and Nineteenth-Century Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Bibliography
295
%HOO0LFKDHO:KDW,V,W/LNHWR%HD1RQUDFLVW"LQ3R\QHU-92.

BergWKDOOHU+DQQHV7UHHVDUH:KDW(YHU\RQH1HHGVThe Lorax, AnthropoFHQWULVPDQGWKH3UREOHPRI0LPHVLVLQ*HUVGRUIDQG0D\HU-75.
. 2007. Populre kologie. Zur Literatur und Geschichte der modernen Umweltbewegung in den USA. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge.
%KDWWDFKDU\D 1DQGLQL 7KH 3DUWLWLRQHG 7LJHU $QLPDO ,FRQV DQG ,PDJLQHG
1DWLRQV LQ $PLWDY *KRVKV The Hungry Tide LQ Journal of the Department of
English 33(1-2): 224-33.
Blackstone, William T. 1974. Philosophy and Environmental Crisis. Athens: U of
Georgia P.
Blumenberg, Hans. 1979. Schiffbruch mit Zuschauer. Paradigma einer Daseinsmetapher. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
%RGH&KULVWRSK:K\7KHRU\0DWWHUVLQ$KUHQVDQG9RONPDQQ100.
Bookchin, Murray. 2004a. Post-Scarcity Anarchism. Edinburgh & Oakland: AK
Press.
E6RFLDO(FRORJ\YV'HHS(FRORJ\$&KDOOHQJHIRUWKH(FRORJ\0RYePHQWLQ&DOOLcott and Palmer (2004): 263-78. [orig. in Green Perspectives 4-5
(1987): 1- 23.]
Booth, Wayne C. 1988. The Company We Keep. An Ethics of Fiction. Berkeley & Los
Angeles: U of California P.
7KH (WKLFV RI )RUPV 7DNLQJ )OLJKW ZLWK The Wings of the Dove LQ
Phelan, James and Peter J. Rabinowitz (eds.) Understanding Narrative. Ohio:
Ohio State UP: 99-135.
Bortolussi, Marisa and Peter Dixon. 2003. Psychonarratology. Foundations for the
Empirical Study of Literary Response. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Botkin, Daniel B. 1990. Discordant Harmonies. A New Ecology for the Twenty-First
Century. New York: Oxford UP.
Bowers, Maggie Ann. 2005. Magic(al) Realism (New Critical Idiom). London and
New York: Routledge.
Brennan, Timothy. 1997. At Home in the World. Cosmopolitanism Now. Cambridge:
Harvard UP.
Brooks, Cleanth. 1947. The Well-Wrought Urn. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Brouillette, Sarah. 2007. Postcolonial Writers in the Global Literary Marketplace.
New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Buell, Lawrence. 1995. The Environmental Imagination. Thoreau, Nature Writing
and the Formation of American Culture. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP.
7KH(FRFULWLFDO,QVXUJHQF\LQNew Literary History 30(3): 699-712.
. 2001. Writing for an Endangered World. Literature, Culture, and Environment
in the United States and Beyond. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
. 2008 [2005]. The Future of Environmental Criticism. Environmental Crisis
and Literary Imagination. Malden and Oxford et al., Blackwell.
, Ursula K +HLVH DQG .DUHQ 7KRUQEHU /LWHUDWXUH DQG (QYLURQPHQWLQ
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 36: 417-40.
Bunce, Michael. 1994. The Countryside Ideal. Anglo-American Images of Landscape.
London: Routledge.
296
%XUQHWW*:DQG.DPX\XZD.DQJHWKH:LOGHUQHVVDQGWKH%DQWX0LQGLQ
Environmental Ethics 16: 145-60.
Callicott, J. Baird and Claire Palmer (eds). 2004. Environmental Philosophy. Critical
Concepts in the Environment. London and New York: Routledge.
&DPSEHOO6XHHOOHQ7Ke Land and Language of Desire. Where Deep Ecology
and Post-6WUXFWXUDOLVP0HHWLQ*ORWIHOW\DQG)URPP-36.
Carroll, Joseph. 2004. Literary Darwinism. Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature.
London and New York: Routledge.
+XPDQ1DWure and Literary Meaning: A Theoretical Model Illustrated
with a Critique of Pride and PrejudiceLQ*RWWVFKDOO-RQDWKDQDQG'DYLG6:Llson (eds) The Literary Animal. Evolution and the Nature of Narrative. Evanston:
Northwestern UP: 76-105.
Carstensen, TKRUVWHQ6KDWWHULQJWKH:RUG-Mirror in Elizabeth Costello: J.M.
&RHW]HHV 'HFRQVWUXFWLYH ([SHULPHQW LQ Journal of Commonwealth Literature
42(1): 76-96.
Cavalieri, Paola (ed.). 2009. The Death of the Animal. A Dialogue. New York: Columbia UP.
Cavell, Stanley et al. (eds.). 2008. Philosophy and Animal Life. New York: Columbia
UP.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2008. Provincializing Europe. Postcolonial Thoughts and Historical Difference. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton UP.
7KH&OLPDWHRI+LVWRU\)RXU7KHVHVLQCritical Inquiry 35: 197-222.
Chambers, Ross. 1991. Room for Maneuver. Reading Oppositional Narratives. Chicago: U of Chicago P.
&KDUOHV5RQ5HYRILife of PiLQ The Washington Post (14. April 2010).
Childs, Peter, Jean Jaques Weber and Patrick Williams. 2006. Post-Colonial Theory
and Literatures. African, Carribean and South Asian. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher
Verlag.
&LODQR&DUDDQG(OL]DEHWK'H/RXJKUH\$JDLQVW$XWKHQWLFLW\*OREDO.QRZOHGJHVDQG3RVWFRORQLDO(FRFULWLFLVPLQISLE 14(1): 71-87.
Clark, Timothy. 2011. The Cambridge Introduction to Literature and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
&ODYLH]7KRPDV(FRORJ\DV0RUDO6WDQGV(QYLURQPHQWDO(WKLFV:HVWHUQ
Moral 3KLORVRSK\DQGWKH3UREOHPRIWKH2WKHULQ*HUVGRUIDQG0D\HU (2006):
435-54.
Coetzee, J.M. 1992. Doubling the Point. Essays and Interviews (ed. David Atwell).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
$QLPDOV&DQW6SHDNIRU7KHPVHOYHV LWVXSWRXVWRGRLWLQThe Age
(22 February 2007).
&RKHQ0LFKDHO3%OXHVLQWKH*UHHQ(FRFULWLFLVPXQGHU&ULWLTXHLQ Environmental History 9(1): 9-36.
&ROH 6WHZDUW %HOLHYLQJ LQ 7LJHUV $QWKURSRPRUSKLVP DQG ,QFUHGXOLW\ LQ
<DQQ0DUWHOVLife of PiLn Studies in Canadian Literature 29(2): 22-36.
&RRNH*UD\VRQ7HFKQLFVDQGWKH+XPDQDW=HUR-+RXU0DUJDUHW $WZRRGV
Oryx and CrakeLQStudies in Canadian Literature/Etudes en Littrature Canadienne 31(2): 63-83.
Bibliography
297
Coupe, Lawrence (ed.). 2008a [2000]. The Green Studies Reader. From Romanticism
to Ecocriticism. New York and London: Routledge.
E*HQHUDO,QWURGXFWLRQLQ&RXSHD-8.
Crane, Kylie. 2009. Where Wilderness Lies. PhD thesis. U of Erlangen-Nrnberg.
7UDFNLQJ WKe Tassie-7LJHU ([WLQFWLRQ DQG (WKLFV LQ -XOLD /HLJKV The
HunterLQ9RONPDQQHWDO (2010): 105-20.
2WKHU6HPLRWLFV$QLPDOV+XPDQVDQG7UDQVODWRUV3DSHUSUHVHQWHGDW
Postcolonial Studies Across the Disciplines (University of Hanover, 2-4 June
2011).
Crosby, Alfred W. 1993. Ecological Imperialism. The Biological Expansion of
Europe 900- 1900. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Curry, Patrick. 2006. Ecological Ethics. An Introduction. Cambridge and Malden:
Polity.
. 200D 1DWXUH 3RVW-1DWXUH LQ New Formations. A Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics 26: 51-64.
E'HIHQGLQJ0LGGOH(DUWKLQ&RXSH (2008a): 282-7.
Curtin, Deane. 2005. Environmental Ethics for a Postcolonial World. Lanham et al.:
Rowman and Littlefield.
'DQWD&KULV-0&RHW]HH7KH-DQXV)DFHRI$XWKRULW\LQDanta Chris, Sue
Kossew and Julian Murphet (eds) Strong Opinions. J.M. Coetzee and the Authority of Contemporary Fiction. New York: Continuum: xi-xx.
Daston, Lorraine. 2005. ,QWHOOLJHQFHV$QJHOLF$QLPDO+XPDQLQ'DVWRQDQG0Ltman (2005): 37-58.
and Gregg Mitman (eds). 2005a. Thinking with Animals. New Perspectives on
Anthropomorphism. New York et al.: Columbia UP.
E7KH+RZDQG:K\RI7KLQNLQJZLWK$QLPDOVin Daston and Mitman:
1-14.
Deitering, Cynthia 7KH 3RVWQDWXUDO 1RYHO LQ *ORWIHOW\ DQG )URPP
196-203.
Deleuze, Gilles and Flix Guattari. 1988. A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and
Schizophrenia. Trans. Brian Massumi. London: Athlone. [orig.: Mille plateau.
Capitalisme et schizophrnie 2. Paris: Minuit, 1980.]
DeLoughrey, Elizabeth and George B. Handley (eds). 2011a. Postcolonial Ecologies.
Literatures of the Environment. Oxford: Oxford UP.
E,QWURGXFWLRQ7RZDUGDQ$HVWKHWLFVRIWKH(DUWKLQ'H/RXJKUH\DQG
Handley (2011): 3-39.
Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of Grammatology (trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak). London and Baltimore: John Hopkins UP.
6RPH6WDWHPHQWVDQG7UXLsms about Neologisms, Newisms, Postisms,
3DUDVLWLVPV DQG RWKHU 6PDOO 6HLVPLVPV LQ &DUURO 'DYLG HG The States of
7KHRU\+LVWRU\$UWDQG&ULWLFDO'LVFRXUVHNew York: Columbia UP: 63-94.
D7KLV6WUDQJH,QVWLWXWLRQ&DOOHG/LWHUDWXUHLQAttridge, Derek (ed.) Acts
of Literature. New York and London: Routledge: 33-76.
E )RUFH RI /DZ 7KH P\VWLFDO )RXQGDWLRQ RI $XWKRULW\ LQ &DUOVRQ
David G., Drucilla Cornell and Michel Rosenfeld (eds) Deconstruction and the
Possibility of Justice. New York and London: Routledge.
298
. 2008. The Animal That Therefore I Am (ed. Marie-Louise Mallet) (trans. David
Wills). New York: Fordham UP.
'HVDL*DXUDY2OG:RUOG2UGHUV$PLWDY *KRVKDQGWKH:ULWLQJRI1RVWDlJLDLQRepresentations 85. 125-48.
'HYDOO %LOO 7KH 'HHS (FRORJ\ 0RYHPHQW LQ Natural Ressources Journal
20.: 299-322.
'LDPRQG&RUD(DWLQJ0HDWDQG(DWLQJ3HRSOHLQPhilosophy 53(206): 46579.
7KH'LIILFXOW\RI5HDOLW\DQGWKH'LIILFXOW\RI3KLORVRSK\LQ&DYHOOHW
al. (2008): 43-89.
'XUUDQW6DP-0&RHW]HHElizabeth Costello, and the Limits of the SympaWKHWLF,PDJLQDWLRQLQ3R\QHU-34.
'Z\HU -XQH <DQQ 0DUWHOV Life of Pi and the Evolution of the Shipwreck
1DUUDWLYHin Modern Language Studies 35(2): 9-21.
Eagleton, Terry. 2012. The Event of Literature. New Haven and London: Yale UP.
Eco, Umberto. 1990. Travels in Hyperreality. Washington: Harvest.
Ehrenfeld, David. 1981. The Arrogance of Humanism. Oxford: Oxford UP.
(OOLRW5RELQ0DUJDUHW$WZRRGDQG0XVLFLQUniversity of Toronto Quarterly
75(3): 821-32.
Escobar, Arturo. 1995. Encountering Development. The Making and Unmaking of the
Thrid World. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Farley, Paul and Michael Symmons Roberts. 2012. Edgelands. Journeys into EngODQGV7UXH:LOGHUQHVV London: Vintage.
)DXOVWLFK3DXO0DSSLQJWKH0\WKRORJLFDO/DQGVFDSH$Q$ERULJLQDO:D\RI
Being-in-the-:RUOGLQEthics, Place, and Environment 1(2): 97-221.
)HOGEUJJH $VWULG 7KH +XPDQ DQG WKH 1RQ-+XPDQ :RUOG LQ =DNHV 0GDV
The Heart of Redness and The Whale CallerLQ9RONPDQQHWDO(2010): 151-66.
)LQNH 3HWHU 'LH HYROXWLRQlUH .XOWXU|NRORJLH +LQWHUJUQGH 3ULQ]LSLHQ XQG
PersSHNWLYHQHLQHUQHXHQ7KHRULHGHU.XOWXULQAnglia 124(1): 175-217.
Fish, Stanley. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive
Communities. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Fletcher, Angus. 2004. A New Theory for American Poetry. Democracy, the Environment, and the Future of Imagination. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP.
)OXFN:LQIULHG7KH5ROHRIWKH5HDGHUDQGWKH&KDQJLQJ)XQFWLRQVRI/LWHUature: Reception Aesthetics, Literary Anthropology, FunktionsgeschichteLQEuropean Journal of English Studies 6(3): 253-71.
Fludernik, Monika. 1996. 7RZDUGVD1DWXUDO1DUUDWRORJ\London and New York:
Routledge.
%H\RQG 6WUXFWXUDOLVP LQ 1DUUDWRORJ\ 5HFHQW 'HYHORSPHQWV DQG 1HZ
+RUL]RQVLQ1DUUDWLYH7KHRU\LQAnglia 11(1): 83-96.
. 200+LVWRULHVRI1DUUDWLYH7KHRULHV,,)URP6WUXFWXUDOLVPWRWKH3UHVHQW
in Phelan, James and Peter J. Rabinowitz (eds) A Companion to Narrative Theory. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell: 36-59.
Foucault, Michel. 1971a. Die Ordnung des Diskurses. [/RUGUH du discours.] Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
. 1971b. The Order of Things. An Archaelogy of the Human Sciences. New
York: Pantheon.
Bibliography
299
)UDQN 0LFKDHO & 'LH /LWHUDWXUZLVVHQVFKDIWHQ XQG GHU spatial turn: Anstze
EHL-XULM/RWPDQXQG0LFKDLO%DFKWLQLQ+allet and Neumann (2009): 53-80.
)ULHGPDQ 6XVDQ 6WDQIRUG 6SDWLDO 3RHWLFV DQG $UXQGKDWL 5R\V The God of
Small ThingsLQ3KHODQDQG5DELQRZLW]-205.
Fudge, Erica. 2002. Animal. London: Reaktion.
*DGDPHU+DQV *HRUJ2QWKH Scope and Function of Hermeneutical ReflecWLRQWUDQV'DYLG(/LQJHLQPhilosophical Hermeneutics. Berkeley: U of California P.
. 1994 Truth and Method (trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall).
New York: Continuum. [orig. Hermeneutik I. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzge
einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010 [1960].]
*DOODV+HOJD6WUXNWXUDOLVPXVDOVLQWHUSUHWDWLYHV9HUIDKUHQLQ*DOODV+HOJD
(ed.) Strukturalismus als interpretatives Verfahren. Darmstadt & Neuwied: Luchterhand: ix-xxxi.
Garrard, Greg. 1998. +HLGHJJHU+HDQH\DQGWKH3UREOHPRI'ZHOOLQJLQ.HUULGJH
Richard and Neil Sammells (1998): 167- 81.
. 2004. Ecocriticism (New Critical Idiom). New York and London: Routledge.
(FRFULWLFLVPDQG(GXFDWLRQIRU6XVWDLQDEOH'HYHORSPHQWLQPedagogy
7(3): 359-83.
D(FRFULWLFLVPDVD&RQWULEXWLRQWR&RQVLOLHQW.QRZOHGJHLQEcozon@
1(1): 22-26.
E+HLGHJJHU1D]LVP(FRFULWLFLVPLQISLE 17(2): 251-71.
F 5HDGLQJ DV an Animal. Ecocriticism and Darwinism in Margaret AtZRRGDQG,DQ0F(ZDQLQ9RONPDQQHWDO-42.
G$1RYHO,GHD6ORZ5HDGLQJTimes Higher Education 2010). On line
at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=412075 (consulted 29.06.2012).
*DUXED +DUU\ ([SORUDWLRQV LQ $QLPLVW 0DWHULDOLVP 1RWHV RQ 5HDdLQJ:ULWLQJ$IULFDQ/LWHUDWXUH&XOWXUHDQG6RFLHW\LQPublic Culture 15(2): 26185.
Geiger, Annette. 2005. *HRUJHV%DWDLOOHXQGGHU'LVNXUVGHURUJDQLVFKHn Form. Zur
*HVWDOWXQJVSKLORVRSKLHYRQ$XJH(LXQGJURHP=HKin Hlk, Walburga and ursula Renner (eds) Biologie, Psychologie, Poetologie. Verhandlungen zwischen
den Wissenschaften. Wrzburg: Knighausen and Neumann. 129-47.
Genette, Grard. 1980. Narrative Discourse. An Essay in Method (trans. Jane E.
Lewin). Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Georgis, Dina. Hearing the Better Story: Learning and the Aesthetics of Loss
and Expulsion LQ The Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies 28:
165-78.
Gersdorf, Catrin and Sylvia Mayer. 2005. gNRORJLHXQG/LWHUDWXUZLVVHQVFKDIW(LQH
(LQOHLWXQJin Gersdorf, Catrin and Sylvia Mayer (eds) Natur Kultur Text. Beitrge zu kologie und Literaturwissenschaft. Heidelberg: Universittsverlag Winter: 7-27.
(eds). 2006a. Nature in Literary and Cultural Studies. Transatlantic Conversations on Ecocriticism. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
. ENature in Literary and Cultural Studies: Defining the Subject of Ecocriticism An IntroductionLQ*HUVGRUIDQGMayer (2006a): 9-21.
300
Gifford, Terry. The Social Construction of Nature LQ Coupe (2000): 173-6.
[orig.: *LIIRUG7HUU\The Social Construction of Nature in ISLE 3(2): 2735.]
. Recent Critiques of EcocriticismLQ New Formations 64: 15-24.
Glotfelty, Cheryll. IntroductionLQGlotfelty and Fromm (1996): xv-xxxvii.
and Harold Fromm (eds). 1996. The Ecocriticism Reader. Landmarks in Literary Ecology. Athens: U of Georgia P.
Glover, Jayne. Human/Nature: Ecological Philosophy in MDUJDUHW $WZRRGV
Oryx and CrakeLQ English Studies in Africa 52(2): 50-62.
Gohrisch, Jana. Cultural Exchange and the Representation of History in Postcolonial LiteratureLQ European Journal of English Studies 10(3): 231-47.
Goodbody, Axel (ed.). 1998. Literatur und kologie. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
. 2007. Nature, Technology and Cultural Change in Twentieth-Century German
Literature. The Challenge of Ecocriticism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
6HQVHRI3ODFHDQd Lieu de Mmoire: A Cultural memory Approach to
(QYLURQPHQWDO7H[WVLQ*RRGERG\ Rigby (2011): 55-67.
& Kate Rigby (eds). 2011. Ecocritical Theory. New European Approaches.
Charlottesville and London: U of Virginia P.
Goodman, Ralph. The Man, the Woman and the Whale: Exploring the Politics
RIWKH3RVVLEOHLQ=DNHV0GDVThe Whale Caller in Current Writing: Text and
Reception in Southern Africa 20(1): 105-18.
Graham, James et al. 2012. 3RVWFRORQLDO6WXGLHVDQG:RUOG/LWHUDWXUHLQJournal of
Postcolonial Writing 48(5): 465-71.
Graham, Lucy. 2002. Yes, I Am Giving Him Up: Sacrificial Responsibility and
/LNHQHVV:LWK'RJVLQ-0&RHW]HHV5HFHQW)LFWLRQLQ Scrutiny 2. Issues in English Studies in Southern Africa 7(1): 4-15.
. 2006. Textual TransvestismLQ Poyner (2006): 217-35.
Gras, Vernon. Dialogism as a Solution for the Present Obstacles to an Ecological CultureLQ Volkmann et al. (2010): 1-9.
Greenblatt, Stephen. 1991. Marvelous Possessions. The Wonder of the New World.
Oxford: Clarendon P.
*UHLPDV$OJLUGDV-(OpPHQWVGXQHJUDPPDLUHQDUUDWLYHLQDu sens. Essays
smiotiques. Paris: Editions du Seuil: 157-83. [1987. On Meaning (trans. Frank
Collins and Paul Perron). Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.]
Grewe-Volpp, Christa. 2006. 1DWXUH 2XW 7KHUH DQG DV D 6RFLDO 3OD\HU 6RPH
Basic Consequences for a Literary Ecocritical AnalysisLQ Gersdorf and Mayer.
(2006): 71-86.
Guha, Ramachandra. 1999. Environmentalism. A Global History. London: Longman.
and Juan Martnez-Alier. 1997. Varieties of Environmentalism. Essays North
and South. London: Earthscan.
Gurr, Jens Martin. D (PSORWWLQJ DQ (FRV\VWHP $PLWDY *KRVKV The Hungry
Tide and the Question of Form in EcocriticismLQ Volkmann et al. (2010): 69-80.
. EBourdieu, Capital, and the Postcolonial MarketplaceLQ(PLJ5DLQHU
and Oliver Lindner (eds) Commodifying (Post)Colonialism. Othering, Reification
and Commodification and the New Literatures and Cultures in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi: 3-19.
Bibliography
301
. IRUWKFRPLQJ:LWKRXW&RQWUDULHVLVQRSURJUHVVLRQ(PSORWWHG)LJXUHVRI
Thought in Negotiating Oppositions, Funktionsgeschichte DQG/LWHUDWXUHDV&XlWXUDO'LDJQRVLV.
Gymnich, Marion. 2008. Funktionen postkolonialer und interkultureller Literatur aus
kulturkologischer Sicht in Zapf (2008): 105-20.
Hallet, Wolfgang and Birgit Neumann (eds). 2009. Raum und Bewegung in der Literatur. Die Literaturwissenschaften und der Spatial Turn. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Haraway, Donna. 1989. Primate Visions. Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of
Modern Science. London and New York: Routledge.
. Teddy Bear Patriarchy. Taxidermy in the Garden of Eden, New York
City, 1908-1936LQ.DSODQ$P\DQG'RQDOG(3HDVHHGV Cultures of United
States Imperialism. Durham and London: Duke UP: 273-91.
. 2003. The Companion Species Manifesto. Dogs, People, and Significant
Otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
. 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis and London: U of Minnesota P.
Harpham, Geoffrey G. Distance Learning: How Literature Teaches EthicsLQ
Anglia 2: 181-96.
Harrasser, Karin, Helmut Lethen and Elisabeth Thimm. 2007. Sehnsucht nach Evidenz. Bielefeld: Transcript. Special issue of Zeitschrift fr Kulturwissenschaften 1.
Hawthorn, Jeremy. 1990. Joseph Conrad. Narrative Technique and Ideological
Commitment. London et al: Edward Arnold.
Head, Dominic. The (Im)Possibility of Ecocriticism LQ Kerridge and Sammells: 27-39.
. Ecocriticism and the NovelLQCoupe (2000): 235-41. [orig. Problems
in Ecocriticism and the Novel in Key Words 1 (1998)].
. A Belief in FrogsLQPoyner (2006): 100-17.
. 2009. The Cambridge Introduction to J.M. Coetzee. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP.
Heidegger, Martin. 3RHWLFDOO\ 0DQ 'ZHOOV LQ Poetry, Language,
Thought. (trans. Albert Hofstaedter). London & New York: Harper & Row: 20927.
Heinen, Sandra and Roy Sommer (eds). 2009. Narratology in the Age of CrossDisciplinary Narrative Research. Berlin: de Gryuter.
Heinberg, Richard. 2007. Peak Everything. Waking Up to the Century of Declines.
East Sussex: Clairview.
Heise, Ursula K. Greening English: Recent Introductions to EcocriticismLQ
Contemporary Literature 47(2): 289-98.
. 2008. Sense of Place and Sense of Planet. The Environmental Imagination of
the Global. Oxford: Oxford UP.
. DLost Dogs, Last Birds, and Listed Species: Cultures of ExtinctionLQ
Configurations 18: 49-72.
. 2010b. Remapping EnglishLQ Ecozon@ 1(1): 27- 34.
. 2010c. Nach der Natur. Das Artensterben und die moderne Kultur. Berlin:
Suhrkamp.
. GRed Lists Blues Paper presented at Environmental Change Cultural
Change. Joint conference of ASLE-UKI and EASLCE (University of Bath, 1-4
September 2010.
302
Heise-von der Lippe, Anja. 2007. Post-apocalyptic Bodies: The Gothic Dystopias of
Margaret Atwood and Angela CarterLQ6WRFNDQG6WRtt (2007): 173-87.
Hengen, Shannon. Margaret Atwood and Environmentalism LQ +RZHOOV
(2006): 72-85.
Herman, David. Histories of Narrative Theories (I): A Genealogy of Early
DevelopmentsLQPhelan and Rabinowitz (2005): 19-35.
. Narrative Ways of World-MakingLQHeinen and Sommer (2009): 7187.
Herron, Tom. 2005. 7KH 'RJ 0DQ %HFRPLQJ $QLPDO LQ &RHW]HHV Disgrace LQ
Twentieth Century Literature 51(4): 467-90.
Himmer, Steve. /DQGRI+HDUWV'HVLUH,QVFULELQJWKH$XVWUDOLan Landscape
in Journal of Ecocriticism 1(1): 43-53.
Hochman, Jan. 7KH /DPEV LQ The Silence of the Lambs LQ Coupe (2008):
299-301.
Howarth, William. Imagined Territory: The Writing of Wetlands LQ New
Literary History 30(3): 509-39.
Howells, Carol Ann. 2006a. The Cambridge Companion to Margaret Atwood. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
. E 0DUJDUHW $WZRRGV '\VWRSLDQ 9LVLRQV 7KH +DQGPDLGV 7DOH and
Oryx and CrakeLQ Howells (2006a): 161-75.
Huggan, Graham. Reading the Readers: Some Thoughts on the Institutionalization of Postcolonial TheoryLQ5HLW]DQG5LHXZHUWV 279-87.
. 2001. The Postcolonial Exotic. Marketing the Margins. New York and London: Routledge.
. Greening Postcolonialism: Ecocritical PerspectivesLQ Modern Fiction
Studies 50(3): 701-33.
. Postcolonial Ecocriticism and the Limits of Green Romanticism LQ
Journal of Postcolonial Writing 45(1): 3-14.
and Helen Tiffin. 2010. Postcolonial Ecocriticism. Literature, Animals, Environment. London and New York: Routledge.
Hutcheon, Linda. 1980. Narcissistic Narrative. The Metafictional Paradox. Waterloo:
Winfried Laurier UP.
Ickstadt, Heinz. 1998. Der amerikanische Roman im 20. Jahrhundert. Transformation
des Mimetischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Ingersoll, Earl G. 2004. 6XUYLYDO LQ 0DUJDUHW $WZRRGV 1RYHO Oryx and Crake LQ
Extrapolation. A Journal on Science Fiction and Fantasy 45(2): 162-75.
Iovino, Serenella. Ecocriticism and a Non-Anthropocentric Humanism LQ
Volkmann et al. (2010): 29-53.
and Serpil Oppermann. Material Ecocriticism: Materiality, Agency, and
Models of NarrativityLQ Ecozon@ 3(1): 75-91.
Iser, Wolfgang. 1975. The Implied Reader. Patterns of Communication in Prose
Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (trans. David Henry Wilson). Baltimore and London: John Hopkins UP.
. 1976. Der Akt des Lesens. Theorie sthetischer Wirkung. Mnchen: Wilhelm
Fink.
. 1993. The Fictive and the Imaginary. Charting Literary Anthropology (trans.
David Henry Wilson). Baltimore: John Hopkins UP. [orig. Das Fiktive und das
Bibliography
303
Imaginre. Perspektiven literarischer Anthropologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1993.]

. 1996. Why Literature MattersLQ$KUHQVDQG9RONPDQQ (1996): 13-22.
. 2007 [2006] How to Do Theory. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.
Jacobs, J.U. =DNHV0GDVThe Heart of Redness. The Novel as Umngqokolo
in Kunapipi. Journal of Post-Colonial Writing 24(1-2): 224-36.
-DNREVRQ5RPDQhEHUGHQ5HDOLVPXVLQGHU.XQVWLQ6WULHGWHU91.
Jalais, Annu. 'ZHOOLQJ RQ 0RULFKMKDSL :KHQ 7LJHUV %HFDPH &LWL]HQV
5HIXJHHV7LJHU-)RRGLQ Economic and Political Weekly 40(17). 1757-62.
James, Edward. Utopias and Anti-UtopiasLQ-DPHV(GZDUGDQG)DUDK0HQdlesohn (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge UP: 219-29.
Johansen, Emily. Imagining the Global and the Rural: Cosmopolitanism in
Sharon BuWDODV The Garden of Eden DQG $PLWDY *KRVKV The Hungry Tide
Postcolonial Text 4(3). [18 pages].
Kakutani, Michiko. From Life of Pi-Author: Stuffed-Animal Allegory about
Holocaust (Rev. of Life of Pi) in The New York Times (12 April 2010).
Kalof, Linda and Amy Fitzgerald. Reading the Trophy: Exploring the Display
of Dead Animals in Hunting MagazinesLQ Visual Studies 18(2): 112-22.
Kalupahama, David J. Man and Nature. Toward a Middle Path of SurvivalLQ
Environmental Ethics 8: 371-80.
Kamboureli, Smaro. The Limits of the Ethical Turn. Troping toward the Other,
Yann Martel, and Self in Studies in Canadian Literature 29(2): 5-21.
Kant, Immanuel. 1987 [1790] Critique of Judgment (trans. Werner S. Pluhar). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Kaur, Rajender. +RPH ,V :KHUH WKH 2UFDHOOD $UH 7RZDUG D 1HZ 3DUDGLJP RI
7UDQVFXOWXUDO (FRFULWLFDO (QJDJHPHQW LQ $PLWDY *KRVKV The Hungry Tide. ,Q
ISLE 14(1): 125-41.
Keats, John. 2002. Selected Letters (ed. Robert Gittings). Oxford: Oxford UP.
Kerridge, Richard. IntroductionLQKerridge and Sammells (1998): 1-9.
. Narratives of Resignation: Environmentalism in Recent Fiction LQ
Parham, John (ed.) The Environmental Tradition in English Literature. Aldershot:
Ashgate. 87-99.
. Ecothrillers: Environmental CliffhangersLQCoupe (2008): 242-9.
and Neil Sammells (eds). 1998. Writing the Environment. Ecocriticism and
Literature. New York: Zed Books.
Kindt, Tom. Narratological Expansion and Its Discontents LQ Heinen and
Sommer (2009): 35-47.
Korte, Barbara. :RPHQV9LHZVRI/DVW0HQ0DU\6KHOOH\V The Last Man
DQG0DUJDUHW$WZRRGVOryx and CrakeLQ6WXUJHVV&KDUORWWHDQG0DUWLQ.XHster (eds) Reading(s) from a Distance. European Perspectives on Canadian
:RPHQV:ULWLQJAugsburg: Winer: 152-65.
Kramsch, Claire. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
UP.
Kroeber, Karl. 1994. Ecological Literary Criticism. Romantic Imagining and the
Biology of Mind. New York: Columbia UP.
304
Landow, George. 6ZLP RU 'URZQ &DUO\OHV :RUOG RI 6KLSZUHFNV &DVWaways, and Stranded VoyagersLQ Studies in English Literature 15(4): 641-55.
Lanser, Susan Sniader. 1992. Fictions of Authority. Women Writers and Narrative
Voice. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers
through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Lazarus, Neil. 1986-Modernism and Modernity: T.W. Adorno and Contemporary
White South African LiteratureLQ Cultural Critique 5: 131-55.
Leakey, Richard & Roger Lewin. 1995. The Sixth Extinction. Paterns of Life and the
Future of Mankind. New York: Anchor.
LeGuin, Ursula. Margaret Atwood: The Road to UtopiaLQThe Guardian 14
October 2011).
Lemm, Vannessa. 2009. 1LHW]VFKHV $QLPDO 3KLOVRSK\ &XOWXUH 3ROLWLFV DQG WKH
Animality of the Human Being. New York: Fordham UP.
Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Levinson, Matrjorie. What is New Formalism?LQ PMLA 122(2): 558-69.
Lodge, David. Disturbing the PeaceLQ The New York Review of Books 50(18):
6.
Lodge, David M. and Christopher Hamlin (eds). 2006. Religion and the New Ecology.
Environmental Responsibility in a World in Flux. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame
P.
Loesberg, Jonathan. 2005. A Return to Aesthetics. Autonomy, Indifferene, and Postmodernism. Stanford: Stanford UP.
Lotman, Jurij. 1977. The Structure of the Artistic Text (trans. Gail Lenhoff and Ronald
Vroon). Ann Arbor: U of Michigan.
. The SemiosphereLQ Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture (ed. Jurij Lotman) (trans. Ann Shukman). London and New York: Tauris:
121-214.
Love, Glen A. Revaluing Nature: Toward an Ecological CriticismLQGlotfelty
and Harold Fromm (1996): 225-40.
. 2003. Practical Ecocriticism. Literature, Biology, and the Environment. Charlottesville and London: U of Virginia P.
Luke, Timothy. 1997. Ecocritique. Contesting the Politics of Nature, Economy, and
Culture. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. OikosLQ Political Writings (trans. Bill Readings and
Kevin P. Geiman). London: UCL: 101-7.
Marcez, Robert P. Speaking before the Environment: Modern Fiction and the
EcologicalLQ Modern Fiction Studies 55(3): 419-41.
Martnez-Alier, Joan. 2002. The Environmentalism of the Poor. A Study of Ecological
Conflicts and Valuation. Cheltenham: Elgar.
Mayer, Sylvia. Literary Studies, Ecofeminism and Environmentalist Knowledge Production in the HumanitiesLQ Gersdorf and Mayer (2006): 111-28.
. 7KH5KHWRULFRI7R[LF'LVFRXUVH7KH,URQLF0RGHLQ-RKQ&KHHYHUV
Oh What A Paradise It SeemsLQStock and Stott (2007): 163-72.
McCutcheon, Mark A. 7KH0HGLXPLVWKH0RQVWHU"*OREDO$IWHUPDWKHPDtics in Canadian Articulations of FrankensteinLQ Volkmann et al. (2010): 205-22.
Bibliography
305
McDowell, Michael J. The Bakhtinian Road to Ecological InsightLQ Glotfelty

and Fromm (1996): 371-91.
0F(ZDQ,DQ$%RRW5RRPLQWKH)UR]HQ1RUWKOn line at:
http://www.capefarewell. com/climate-science/comment-opinion/ianmcewan.html. 2005 (consulted 07.08.2011).
McKibben, Bill. 2006 [1989]. The End of Nature [1989]. New York, Random House.
Mda, Zakes. Acceptance Speech for the Olive Schreiner Prize LQ English
Academy Review 14: 279-81.
. $5HVSRQVHWR'XSOLFLW\DQG3ODJLDULVPLQ=DNHV0GDVThe Heart of
RednessE\$QGUHZ2IIHQEXUJHULQ Research in African Literatures 39(3): 2003.
Meeker, Joseph W. 1988. Minding the Earth. Thinly Disguised Essays on Human
Ecology. Alameda: Latham.
. 1997 [1974]. The Comedy of Survival. Literary Ecology and a Play Ethic.
Tucson: U of Arizona P.
Meyer, Sandra. IRUWKFRPLQJThe StRU\WKDW*DYHWKH/DQG,WV/LIH The IntertextXDO6LJQLILFDQFHRI5DLQHU0DULD5LONHVDuino Elegies LQ$PLWDY*KRVKV1RYHO
The Hungry Tide
Miller, James E. (Jr.). 1972. Theory of Fiction: Henry James. Lincoln: U of Nebraska
P.
Middeke, Martin. 2011. Literature and/as Ethics: An IntroductionLQ Anglia 1-2: vix.
Mitterer, Josef. 2011. Das Jenseits der Philosophie. Wider das dualistische Erkenntnisprinzip. Weilerswist: Velbrck.
0RKU'XQMD07UDQVJUHVVLYH8WRSLDQ'\VWRSLDV7KH3RVWPRGHUQReappearDQFHRI8WRSLDLQWKH'LVJXLVHRI'\VWRSLDLQZeitschrift fr Anglistik und Amerikanistik. A Quarterly of Language, Literature and Culture 55(1): 5-24.
Morton, Timothy. 2007. Ecology without Nature. Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
. Practicing Deconstruction in the Age of Ecological Emergency LQ
Garrard, Greg (ed.) Teaching Ecocriticism and Green Cultural Studies. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 156-66.
Moylan, Tom. 2000. Scraps of the Untainted Sky. Science Fiction, Utopia, Dystopia.
Boulder: Westview P.
Mller, Timo. 2008. Formen kulturkologischen Erzhlens von Dickens bis Ishiguro
in Zapf (2008): 59-74.
. 1RWHVWRZDUGDQ(FRORJLFDO&RQFHSWLRQRI%DNKWLQV&KURQRWRSHLQ
Ecozon@ 1(1): 98-102.
Mukherjee, Pablo. 6XUILQJWKH6HFRQG:DYHV$PLWDY*KRVKV7LGH&RXQWU\
in New Formations. A Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics 59: 144-57.
. 2010. Postcolonial Environments. Nature, Culture and the Contemporary
Novel in English. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mulhall, Stephen. 2009. The Wounded Animal. J.M. Coetzee and the Difficulty of
Reality in Literature and Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Murphy, Patrick D. Anotherness and Inhabitation in Recent Multicultural
American LiteratureLQKerridge and Sammells (1998): 40-52.
306
. Dialoguing with Bakhtin over Our Ethical Responsibility to Anothers

in Goodbody and Rigby (2011): 155-67.
Naess, Arne. The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. A
SummaryLQ Callicott and Palmer (2004): 51-6. [orig. in Inquiry 16 (1973): 95100.]
Nagel, Thomas. What Is It Like to Be a Bat?LQ Mortal Questions. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP: 165-80.
Neumann, Birgit. 2009. ,PDJLQDWLve Geographien in kolonialer und postkolonialer
Literatur: Raumkonzepte der (Post-)Kolonialismusforschung in Hallet and Neumann (2009): 115-38.
Niblett, Michael. 2012. :RUOG-Economy, World-Ecology, World-/LWHUDWXUH LQ
Green Letters. Studies in Ecocriticism 16: 15-30.
Nixon, Rob. 2005. Environmentalism and Postcolonialism LQ /RRPED $QLD HG
Postcolonial Studies and Beyond. Durham: Duke UP: 233-51.
. Stranger in the Eco-Village: Environmental Time, Race, and Ecologies
of LookingLQ'H/RXJKUH\DQG+DQGOH\2011a): 159-81.
Nnaemeka, Obioma. Feminism, Rebellious Women, and Cultural Boundaries:
Rereading Flora Nwapa and Her CompatriotsLQ Research in African Literatures
26(2): 80-113.
Norris, Margot. 1985. Beasts of Modern Imagination: Darwin, Nietzsche, Kafka,
Ernst, and Lawrence. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP.
Nnning, Ansgar. 2009. Formen und Funktionen literarischer Raumdarstellung:
Grundlagen, Anstze, narratologische Kategorien und neue PerspektivenLQ Hallet and Neumann (2009): 33-52.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2001. Upheavals of Thought. The Intelligence of Emotions.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
. 2006. Frontiers of Justice. Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge: Belknap.
2%ULHQ6XVLHArticulating a World of Difference: Ecocriticism, PostcolonialLVPDQG*OREDOL]DWLRQLQCanadian Literature 170/171: 140-58.
. %DFNWRWKH:RUOG5HDGLQJ(FRFULWLFLVPLQD3RVWFRORQLDO&RQWH[WLQ
Tiffin, Helen (ed.) Five Emus to the King of Siam: Environment and Empire. Amsterdam: Rodopi: 177-99.
Oelschlaeger, Max. 1991. The Idea of Wilderness. From Prehistory to the Age of
Ecology. New Haven and London: Yale UP.
Offenburger, Andrew. Duplicity and Plagiarism in ZaNHV0GDVThe Heart of
RednessLQ Research in African Literatures 39(3): 164-99.
Oppermann, Serpil. Toward an Ecocentric Postmoderm [sic] Theory. Fusing
Deep Ecology and Quantum MechanicsLQ The Trumpeter 19(1): 7-36.
. The Rhizomatic Trajectory of EcocriticismLQ Ecozon@ 1(1): 17-21.
Osborne, Carol. 0\WKPDNLQJLQ0DUJDUHW$WZRRGV Oryx and Crake in Appleton, Sarah A. (ed.) Once Upon A Time. Myth, Fairy-Tales and Legends in
0DUJDUHW$WZRRGV:ULWLQJNewcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars: 25-46.
Parham, John. The Poverty of Ecocritical Theory: E.P. Thompson and the
British PerspectiveLQ New Formations 64: 25-36.
. 2010. Green Man Hopkins. Poetry and the Victorian Ecological Imagination.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Bibliography
307
. 201DEditorialLQ Green Letters 4: 5-9.

. E)RU\RXSROOXWLRQ7KH9LFWRULDQ1RYHODQG+XPDQ(FRORJ\%HnMDPLQ'LVUDHOLVSybil DQG(OL]DEHWK*DVNHOOVMary BartonLQ Green Letters 14:
23-38.
Parry, Benita. 2004. Postcolonial Studies. A Materialist Critique. London and New
York: Routledge.
Paulson, William R. 1988. The Noise of Culture. Literary Texts in a World of Information. Ithaka and London: Cornell UP. 181.
Peires, Jeff B. 1989. The Dead Will Rise. Nongqawuse and the Great Xhosa CattleKilling Movements 1856-7. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Perner, Claudia. 2011. 3ULYDWH /LIH WKH $UWLVW DQG WKH 7HUURULVW 86-American Inoutsider Perspectives in Anglophone Twenty-First-Century Novels. PhD thesis. U
of Duisburg-Essen.
Phelan, James & Peter J. Rabinowitz (eds). 2005. A Companion to Narrative Theory.
Malden et al: Blackwell.
Phillips, Dana. ,V1DWXUH1HFHVVDU\"LQ*ORWIHOW\DQG Fromm (1996): 204-22.
. Ecocriticism, Literary Theory, and the Truth of EcologyLQ New Literary History 30(3): 577-602.
. 2003. The Truth of Ecology. Nature, Culture, and Literature in America. Oxford and New York: Oxford UP.
Platz, Norbert. Greening the New Literatures in English: A Plea for EcocriticismLQReitz and Rieuwerts (2000): 313-26.
Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London and New York:
Routledge.
. 2002. Environmental Culture. The Ecological Crisis of Reason. London and
New York: Routledge.
Potolsky, Matthew. 2006. Mimesis. London and New York: Routledge.
Poyner, Jane. 2006. J.M. Coetzee and the Idea of the Public Intellectual. Athens: Ohio
UP.
Pratt, Mary Louise. 1992. Imperial Eyes. Travel Writing and Transculturation. London and New York: Routledge.
Radkau, Joachim. 2002. Natur und Macht. Eine Weltgeschichte der Umwelt. Mnchen: C.H. Beck.
. Die ra der kologie. Eine Weltgeschichte. Mnchen: C.H. Beck, 2011.
Raglon, Rebecca and Marian Scholtmeijer. Animals Are not Believers in
Ecology: Mapping Critical Differences Between Environmental and Animal Advocacy LiteraturesLQ ISLE 14(2): 121-40.
Reckwitz, Erhard. 2000. Postcolonially ever after Bemerkungen zum Stand der
PostkolonialismusdebatteLQ Anglia 118(1): 1-40.
Reichholf. Josef H. 2008. Stabile Ungleichgewichte. Die kologie der Zukunft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Reitz, Bernhard and Sigrid Rieuwerts (eds). 2000. Anglistentag Mainz 1999: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
5LFXU 3DXO Time and Narrative. Vol I. Chicago: U of Chcago P. [orig.:
Temps et rcit. Vol 1. Paris: Seuil, 1983].
. Narrative TimeLQ0LWFKHOO:-7KRPDVHG On Narrative. Chicago:
U of Chicago P: 165-86.
308
. Narrative IdentityLQ Philosophy Today 35(1): 73-81.

Rigby, Kate. Earth, World, Text: On the (Im)Possibility of EcopoiesisLQ New
Literary History 35: 427-42.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. 2002 [1983]. Narrative Fiction. London and New York:
Routledge.
Rollason, Christopher. ,Q2XU7UDQVODWHG:RUOG7Uanscultural CommunicaWLRQLQ$PLWDY*KRVKVThe Hungry TideLQ The Atlantic Literary Review 6(1-2):
86-107.
Roos, Bonnie and Alex Hunt. 2010. Postcolonial Green. Environmental Politics and
World Narratives. Charlottesville: U of Virginia P.
Rorty, 5LFKDUG+HUPHQHXWLFV*HQHUDO6WXGLHVDQG7HDFKLQJLQ$KUHQVDQG9ROkmann (1996): 13-36.
Ross, Andrew. 1994. 7KH&KLFDJR*DQJVWHU7KHRU\RI/LIH1DWXUHV'HEWWR6RFLHW\.
London and New York: Verso.
Routley, Richard & Val Routley. Human Chauvinism and Environmental
Ethics LQ 0DQQLVRQ 'RQ 6 0LFKDHO $ 0F5REELH DQG 5LFKDUG 5RXWOH\ HGV
Environmental Philosophy. Canberra: ANU Research School of Social Sciences:
96-189.
Roy, Arundhati. 1999. The Cost of Living. London: Flamingo.
Ruskin, John. 2005 [1856]. Modern Painters. Volume III. New York: Adamant.
Said, Edward W. 1991. Orientalism. Western Conceptions of the Orient. London:
Penguin.
Scholtmeijer, Marian. 1993. Animal Victims in Modern Fiction. Toronto: U of Toronto P.
Schulze-Engler, Frank. Strange Encounters or Succeeding Dialogues? Science,
&XOWXUH DQG 0RGHUQLW\ LQ $PLWDY *KRVKV The Calcutta Chromosome and The
Hungry TideLQJuterczenka, Snne and Gesa Mackenthun (eds) The Fuzzy Logic
of Encounter. New Perspectives on Cultural Contact. Mnster: Waxmann. 17384.
and Sissy Helff (eds). 2009. Transcultural English Studies. Theories, Fictions,
Realities. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Schweiker, William. %H\RQG ,PLWDWLRQ 0LPHWLF 3UD[LV LQ *DGDPHU 5LFXU
and DerridaLQ The Journal of Religion 68(1): 21-38.
Sen, Malcolm. Spatial Justice: The Ecological Imperative and Postcolonial
DevelopmentLQ Journal of Postcolonial Writing 45(4): 365-77.
Sessions, George. The Deep Ecology Movement: A Reviewin Environmental
Review 11(2): 105-25.
(ed.). 1995. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century. Readings on the Philosophy and
Practice of the New Environmentalism. Boston and London: Shambhala.
Sewlall, Harry. Deconstructing Empire in Joseph Conrad and Zakes Mda LQ
Journal of Literary Studies 19(3): 331-44.
. (FRIHPLQLVPLQ=DNHV0GDVThe Heart of RednessLQ&DPSEHOO$ndrea (ed.) New Directions in Ecofeminist Literary Criticism. Newcastle-uponTyne: Cambridge Scholars. 108-23.
Sher, Benjamin. Shklovsky and the RevolutionLQ klovsky (2009): xv-xxi.
Sinfield, Alan. 1992. Faultlines. Cultural Materialism and the Politics of Dissident
Reading. Oxford: Clarendon P.
Bibliography
309
Singer, Peter. 1993. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

NORYVNy, Viktor. 1971 [1919]. Der Zusammenhang zwischen dem Verfahren der
Sujetfhrung und den allgemeinen Stilverfahren in Striedter (1971): 36-120.
. 2009 [1990]. Theory of Prose (trans. Benjamin Sher). Champaign and London:
Dalkey Archive.
Slemon, Stephen. Monuments of Empire: Allegory/Counterdiscourse/PostColonial WritingLQ Kunapipi 9(3): 1-16.
Slovic, Scott. Ecocriticism: Containing Multitudes, Practising Doctrine LQ
Coupe (2008): 160-62. [orig.Ecocriticism at the MLA: A RoundtableLQ ASLE
News 11(1), 1999.]
Snow, Charles P. 1998 [1959, 1964]. The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Sobriquet Magazine. Margaret Atwood, Transhumanism, and the Singularity RQ
line: http://www.sobriquetmagazine.com/sobriquet/2011/02/sobriquet-701.html.
(consulted 09.08.2011).
Soper, Kate. 1995. What is Nature? London: Blackwell.
Spiegel, Marjorie. 1996. The Dreaded Comparison. Human and Animal Slavery. New
York: Mirror.
Spivak, Gayatri C. Can the Subaltern Speak?LQ1HOVRQ&DU\DQG/DZUHQFH
Grossberg (eds) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana: U of Illinois
P: 271-313.
Staels, Hilde. Oryx and Crake 0DUJDUHW $WZRRGV ,URQLF ,QYHUVLRQ RI )UDQkensteinLQ0RVV-RKQDQGTobi Kozakewich (eds) Margaret Atwood. The Open
Eye. Ottawa: U of Ottawa P. 433-46.
Steinwand, Jonathan. What the Whales Would Tell Us. Cetacean Communication in Novels by Witi Ihimaera, Linda Hogan, Zakes Mda, and Amitav GhoshLQ
DeLoughrey and Handley (2010a): 182-99.
Stierle, Karlheinz. 1983. Die Fiktion als Vorstellung, als Werk und als Schema
Eine Problemskizze in Henrich, Dieter and Wolfgang Iser (eds) Funktionen des
Fiktiven. Mnchen: Wilhelm Fink: 173-82.
Stock, Angela & Cornelia Stott (eds.). 2007. Representing the Unimaginable. Narratives of Disaster. Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang.
Striedter, Jurij (ed.). 1971a [1969]. Russischer Formalismus. Texte zur allgemeinen
Literaturtheorie und zur Theorie der Prosa. Mnchen: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
. 1971b. Zur formalistischen Theorie der Prosa und der literarischen Evolution
in Striedter (1971a): ix-lxxxiii.
Sylvan, Richard. 1993. Is there a Need for D 1HZ DQ (QYLURQPHQWDO (WKLF" LQ
Zimmermann, Michael E. et al. (eds.) Environmental Philosophy: From Animal
Rights to Radical Ecology. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. 12-21. [orig. published as a paper in Bulgarian Organizing Commitee (ed.) Proceedings of the
XVth World Congress of Philosophy. Vol I. Varna Bulgaria: Sophia Press (1973):
205-10.]
and David Bennett. The Greening of Ethics. From Human Chauvinism to DeepGreen Theory. Cambridge: White Horse Press.
Szafraniec, Asja. 2007. Beckett, Derrida, and the Event of Literature. Stanford: Stanford UP.
Sztybel, David. Can the Treatment of Animals be Compared to the Holocaust?
in Ethics and the Environment 11(1): 97-132.
310
Tietz, Udo. 1999. Hans-Georg Gadamer zur Einfhrung. Hamburg: Junius.

Titlestad, Michael and Mike Kissack. ThH )RRW 'RHV 1RW 6QLII ,PDJLQLQJ
the Post-Anti-Apartheid IntellectualLQ Journal of Literary Studies 19(3/4): 25570.
Todorov, Tzvetan. 1977. The Poetics of Prose (trans. Richard Howard). Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Tomsky, Terry. $PLWDY*KRVKs Anxious Witnessing and the Ethics of Action
in The Hungry TideLQ Journal of Commonwealth Literature 44(1): 53-65.
Tucker, Herbert F. From the EditorsLQ New Literary History 30(3): 505-8.
Turner, Stephanie S. Open-Ended Stories: Extinction Narratives in Genome
TimeLQ Literature and Medicine 26(1): 55-82.
Vital, Anthony. Toward an African Ecocriticism: Postcolonialism, Ecology
and Life and Times of Michael K.LQ Research in African Literatures 39(1): 87106.
Volkmann, Laurenz; et al. (eds). 2010. Local Natures, Global Responsibilities. Ecocritical Perspectives on the New English Literatures. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Watt, Ian. 2000 [1957]. The Rise of the Novel. Studies in Richardson, Fielding, Defoe.
London: Pimlico.
Watts, Peter. Margaret Atwood and the Hierarchy of Contempt LQ On Spec
15(2): 3-5.
Weik, Alexa. 2006- The Home, the Tide, and the World: Eco-Cosmopolitan EnFRXQWHUVLQ$PLWDY*KRVKVThe Hungry TideLQ Journal of Commonwealth and
Postcolonial Studies 13(2)-14(1): 120-41.
Westling, Louise. Literature, the Environment, and the Question of the PosthumanLQGersdorf and Mayer (2006): 25-47.
White, Lynn T. The Historical Roots of Our Environmental CrisisLQ Science
155(3767): 1203-07.
Williams, Raymond. 1976. Keywords. A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Guildford: Biddles.
Wlfle, Stefanie. 2010. /LWHUDU\ (QYLURQPHQWDO -XVWLFH" 7KH 1DWXUDO (QYLURQPHQW
DV6XEMHFWWR3RVWFRORQLDO1HJRWLDWLRQ$Q(FRFULWLFDO5HDGLQJRI$PLWDY*KRVKV
The Hungry Tide. B.A. thesis. U of Duisburg-Essen.
Wolfe, Cary. DHumanist and Antihumanist AntispeciesismLQ&DYDOLHUL3DROD
(ed.) The Death of the Animal. A Dialogue. New York: Columbia UP.
. E +XPDQ $OO 7RR +XPDQ $QLPDO 6WXGLHV DQd the Humanities LQ
PMLA 124(2): 564-75.
. 2010. What is Posthumanism? Minneapolis & London: U of Minnesota P.
Wood, Dominic. Greening EducationLQ Hayes, Dennis (ed.) The RoutledgeFalmer Guide to Key Debates in Education. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer: 103-7.
Wood, James. 2009. How Fiction Works. London: Vintage.
Woodward, Wendy. Postcolonial Ecologies and the Gaze of Animals: Reading
Some Contemporary Southern African NarrativesLQ Journal of Literary Studies
19(3-4): 290-315.
. /DXJKLQJ %DFN DWWKH .LQJILVKHU =DNHV 0GDV The Heart of Redness
and Postcolonial HumourLQ5HLFKO6XVDQQHDQG0DUN6WHLQHGV Cheeky Fictions. Laughter and the Postcolonial. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 287-300.
Bibliography
311
. A Cautionary Tale: The Whale Caller (5HYRI=DNHV0GDVThe Whale

Caller) in Society and Animals 15: 299-307.
. 2009. The Animal Gaze. Animal Subjectivities in Southern African Narratives.
Johannesburg: Wits UP.
Wright, Laura. A Feminist-Vegetarian Defence of Elizabeth Costello: A Rant
IURP DQ (WKLFDO $FDGHPLF LQ -0 &RHW]HHV The Lives of Animals LQ Poyner
(2006): 193-216.
. 2010. Wilderness into Civilized Shapes. Reading the Postcolonial Environment. Athens and London: U of Georgia P.
Young, Robert J.C. 2003. Postcolonialism. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Zapf, Hubert. Literary Theory in America between Innovation and Dogmatism:
Some Reflections with a View to the Cultural Function of Literature LQ Ahrens
and Volkmann (1996): 393-410.
. 2Literature as Cultural Ecology. Notes Towards a Functional Theory of
Imaginative Texts with Examples from American Literature LQ *UDEHV +HUEHUW
(ed.) Literary History/Cultural History. Force-Fields and Tensions. Tbingen:
Narr. 85-99.
. DLiterature and Ecology: Introductory Remarks on a New Paradigm of
Literary StudiesLQ Anglia 124(1): 1-10.
. E The State of Ecocriticism and the Function of Literature as Cultural
EcologyLQGersdorf and Mayer (2006a): 49-69.
(ed.). 2008a. Kulturkologie und Literatur. Beitrge zu einem transdisziplinren Paradigma der Literaturwissenschaft. Heidelberg: Winter.
. 2008b. Kulturkologie und Literatur. Ein transdisziplinres Paradigma der
Literaturwissenschaftin Zapf (2008a): 15-44.
. Literary Ecology and the Ethics of TextsLQ New Literary History 39:
847- 68.
Zwierlein, Anne-Julia. 2009. Der physiologische Bildungsroman im 19. Jahrhundert.
Selbstformung, Leistungsethik und organischer Wandel in Naturwissenschaft und
Literatur. Heidelberg: Winter.

Environmentality

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Environmentality

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Acknowledgements

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

Ecocriticism [...] claims as its hermeneutical environment nothing

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

Such a connection of aesthetics with ethics, however, entails a

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

talism: the stance of Western environmental ethics, which believes its

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

will argue that literary texts successfully reintegrate distinct discourses

2. The State of Environmental Literary Criticism

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

Naturally, this new diversity leads to quite different scholarly aims,

Coming to a similar conclusion, Philip Armstrong, in his discussion of

The State of Environmental Literary Criticism

discuss and negotiate the aporias of environmental and ecocritical

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

generalising claim about the wURQJVRIWKHRU\LVDWRGGVZLWK%XHOOV

2.1 Ecocriticism Between the Disciplines

The State of Environmental Literary Criticism

289) is twofold: it lies in its lack of theoretical sophistication and on

The model of WKHthree waves of ecocriticism is relatively popular, and I refer to

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

because it combines immediate perception and cultural representation.

The State of Environmental Literary Criticism

coQFHSWVin certain respects. I therefore understand ecocritical literary

2.1.1 Environmental Philosophy

Even in Radkau 2011, which VHWRXWWREHDZRUOGKLVWRU\RIHQYLURQPHQWDOLVP

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

human life. An example of such a comprehensive focus is given by

The State of Environmental Literary Criticism

tion it was believed to be (which postcolonial studies have shown

A number of scholars have addressed the paradoxical state of affairs by different

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

at work already in the moral frameworks of the Mosaic Decalogue and

Ursula Heise has shown this analysis to be deeply grounded in the

The State of Environmental Literary Criticism

ical context, the phrase is often cited as a radical instance of

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

(WKLFV Curry 2006: 81), thereby following Naess, who regarded

The State of Environmental Literary Criticism

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

branches of philosophy and traditional ethics. All biological life is

For literary criticism, such a stance may work, since literary

The State of Environmental Literary Criticism

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

describes the suffering of people in the so-called Third World as a

He goes on to dismiss 'HHS(FRORJ\E\FDOOLQJLWDEL]DUUHPL[RI

The State of Environmental Literary Criticism

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

2.1.2 Ecological Science

'DQD3KLOOLSVTruth of Ecology (2003) stands as the most comprehensive study of

The State of Environmental Literary Criticism

Much ecocritical terminology refers to ecology in a metaphoric or

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

This is why efforts to appeal to the authority of science, especially as a

The State of Environmental Literary Criticism

and ideology, which also permeate scientific language. In fact, such

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

2.1.3 Literary Studies and the Real

The State of Environmental Literary Criticism

his Cambridge Introduction to Literature and the Environment. To

EnvironMentality Ecocriticism and the Event of Postcolonial Fiction

Even in Radkau 2011, which VHWRXWWREHDZRUOGKLVWRU\RIHQYLURQPHQWDOLVP

has been added to ecocriWLFLVP)URPZLOGHUQHVVZULWLQJWRDSRFDO\pWLFLVP0RUWRQSRLQWVRXW that HQYLURQPHQWDOGLVFRXUVHZDQWVWRJR

This leads him to a model of how these transformations are initiDWHG)LUVWO\KHVWDWHVWKDWOLWHUDU\WH[WVSUHVHQWDQGFULWLFLVHGHILFLWV

6HFRQGO\OLWHUDWXUHLVVDLGWRFRQIURQWWKHVHV\VWHPVZLWKDKROLstic-pluralistic approach that focuses [...] on that which is marginalised,

ZKLOH HFRFULWLFLVP E\ FRQWUDVW SUHIHUV WKH UHDOLVW WH[W 2%ULHQ