Zugl.: Berlin, Freie Univ., Diss., 2008

This thesis undertakes a critical study of ethics in the postcolonial novel. Focusing on four authors, namely Amitav Ghosh, Chimamanda Adichie, Caryl Phillips, and Kazuo Ishiguro, I conduct a comparative analysis of the ethical engagement offered in a selection of their novels. I argue that the recognitions and related emotional responses of characters are integral to the unfolding of these novels’ ethical concerns. The ethics thus explored are often marked by the complexity and impurity characteristic of the tragic – an impurity which is productively thought together with Jacques Derrida’s understanding of “radical evil”. I arrive at this through deploying an approach to ethics in the postcolonial novel that is largely drawn from the work of Martha Nussbaum, David Scott, and Terence Cave. This approach is attentive to both the particular contexts in which the novels’ ethical concerns unfold, as well as the general ethical questions in relation to which these can be understood. Crucial to this is the concept of anagnorisis, that is, the recognition scene. Functioning as both a structural and a thematic element, it serves as a hinge between the general and the specific ethical considerations in a novel. There are three ethical themes that I consider across the thesis: the ethics of remembrance, the human, and religion. The works of these four authors cluster around these concerns to differing degrees and with differing perspectives. What emerges is that while each engagement is focused on the particular details that the novel represents, the range of perspectives can nevertheless be productively read alongside one another as interventions into these general concerns. Following from this I also conclude that as a suitable, if not privileged, form in which to engage questions of the ethical, the postcolonial novel hosts the ethical difficulty that I name as the tragic, and which is characterised by the term radical evil.

Because of critical neglect, there is no established terminology to describe techniques of suspense. Borrowing from Aristotle, Koestler, and others, a new body of concepts is suggested and importantly, a distinction of tense is established, between types of suspense which relate to the narrative past, present, and future. The classical world's intuition of a connection between mental uncertainty and the physical state of hanging has conditioned Western man's notion of narrative suspense until a comparatively recent date. Eighteenth-century theories of the sublime helped to create an understanding that suspense was not necessarily painful. Through an analysis of novels by Jane Austen, George Eliot, Dickens, Hardy, and Conrad, an attempt is made to identify and evaluate the most common suspense strategies in the period's popular genres, notably the Austenian romance, mystery, and tragedy. The Austenian romance is compared to the detective story in that narrative presentation is determined by the need to control the reader's expectations, and to achieve an ending which is both satisfactory and surprising. The latter requirement may have contributed to the gradual disappearance of the authorial "voice" in the course of the nineteenth century, and a consequent reduction in the pleasures of irony and comedy. During the Victorian period, many genres are combined in the long novel, but mystery gradually advances in popularity and sophistication, to the point where narrative events are often inappropriately exploited as secrets. Tragedy involves a creative conflict between the reader's hopes and expectations, so he is permitted to glimpse the overall tragic process, and suspense is generated on the levels of theme and causaliy. The problems incurred by an inability or unwillingness to conclude structures of theme suspense are considered finally.

John 21 tells of the “miraculous draught of fishes.” The disciples fish all night and catch nothing. In the morning, they fail to recognize Jesus on the shore, instructing them to cast their net again. After an amazing catch and subsequent breakfast, Jesus thrice questions Peter’s love and commissions him to “feed my sheep.” Using Narrative Criticism, this study examines this recognition scene, specifically in light of recognition scenes in Genesis. Previous work used primarily Greco-Roman texts to analyze Johannine recognition. This study adds the Hebraic perspective, asking, “How would a reader, well acquainted with Genesis, understand recognition in John 21?” This study labels characters who withhold recognition from others as “manipulators,” and argues that biblical recognition can be understood within a context of “manipulation.” It proposes a taxonomy of manipulation with six narrative kernels. This yields four patterns gleaned from Genesis: 1) Manipulation narratives are focused around chosen leaders—manipulators—undergoing a character development process; 2) These manipulators disempower others while empowering themselves for gain; 3) Genesis manipulation stories often contain evocative déjà vu motifs: repetitive words and themes connecting the units, reinforcing the story, and sometimes haunting manipulators; 4) Manipulators are often “counter-manipulated” in a reciprocal manner ironically similar to their own previous behavior. This may correct and transform the manipulator. The taxonomy and patterns are applied to John 21:1-19 as a lens for a new reading. The study also examines Greek diminutives in John 21, which enhances the reading. This reading characterizes Peter’s earlier behavior in John 18 as manipulative, when he withheld his identity three times. When the disciples go aimlessly fishing in John 21, Jesus actively withholds his identity in ironic counter-manipulation, mirroring Peter’s earlier denials. The disciples’ lack of recognition underscores their dullness, especially Peter’s. Jesus’ three questions to Peter continue the ironic counter-manipulation, paralleling Peter’s earlier three denials. Finally, Jesus predicts Peter will glorify God in his death, indicating his future turn toward ideal discipleship. / New Testament / D. Th. (New Testament)

John 21 tells of the “miraculous draught of fishes.” The disciples fish all night and catch nothing. In the morning, they fail to recognize Jesus on the shore, instructing them to cast their net again. After an amazing catch and subsequent breakfast, Jesus thrice questions Peter’s love and commissions him to “feed my sheep.” Using Narrative Criticism, this study examines this recognition scene, specifically in light of recognition scenes in Genesis. Previous work used primarily Greco-Roman texts to analyze Johannine recognition. This study adds the Hebraic perspective, asking, “How would a reader, well acquainted with Genesis, understand recognition in John 21?” This study labels characters who withhold recognition from others as “manipulators,” and argues that biblical recognition can be understood within a context of “manipulation.” It proposes a taxonomy of manipulation with six narrative kernels. This yields four patterns gleaned from Genesis: 1) Manipulation narratives are focused around chosen leaders—manipulators—undergoing a character development process; 2) These manipulators disempower others while empowering themselves for gain; 3) Genesis manipulation stories often contain evocative déjà vu motifs: repetitive words and themes connecting the units, reinforcing the story, and sometimes haunting manipulators; 4) Manipulators are often “counter-manipulated” in a reciprocal manner ironically similar to their own previous behavior. This may correct and transform the manipulator. The taxonomy and patterns are applied to John 21:1-19 as a lens for a new reading. The study also examines Greek diminutives in John 21, which enhances the reading. This reading characterizes Peter’s earlier behavior in John 18 as manipulative, when he withheld his identity three times. When the disciples go aimlessly fishing in John 21, Jesus actively withholds his identity in ironic counter-manipulation, mirroring Peter’s earlier denials. The disciples’ lack of recognition underscores their dullness, especially Peter’s. Jesus’ three questions to Peter continue the ironic counter-manipulation, paralleling Peter’s earlier three denials. Finally, Jesus predicts Peter will glorify God in his death, indicating his future turn toward ideal discipleship. / New Testament / D. Th. (New Testament)