Four Plots in One
Nava, Mica. “Thinking Internationally: Gender and Racial Others in Postwar Britain.” Third Text
20.6 (2006): 671-82. Web. 14 Oct. 2010.
Mica Nava is responding to Caryl Phillips, black British Caribbean novelist, who argued that most British creative writers in the post- World War II years ignored the migrant increase in Britain. Nava takes this argument and uses to it to explore the connection between gender and racial in postwar Britain. She questions the ways men and women as authors wrote about race and sexuality between races. Ultimately, they allow the audience to reflect on how gender and racial difference opinions has altered over the course of time since World War II.
Nava explicitly states that her focus recognizes that racism is a contested field. She explores this field through focusing on urban cosmopolitanism and its representations on twentieth-century life as well gendered opinions on racial difference. Exploring this gendered difference through various texts (movies and writings), Nava exposes how male and female writers devise varying views of racial difference. She includes direct quotations as well as still photos from the films she discusses. She explores the primary sources as well as secondary sources commenting on these primary sources and other theoretical works such as Stanley Cohen’s States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. Furthermore, she divides the article into three sections: problem, context, fiction and film examples, and a final reflection section entitled “In Hindsight.”
Looking at these issues through a gender-focused lens, Nava gives the context that white British women were more open to associating with black males than white males and that some would even go to a movie or dance with a non-white person (672). She concludes that the work of white women writers dealing with black migrants cannot be essentialized. Nava states that both white and black male writers sexualized the interracial relationships that women writers just wrote about. Nava emphasizes Sam Selvon’s The Lonely Londoners as sexualizing interracial relationships, but not really giving women identities. The male authors suggest racial minorities are not as overlooked as Caryl Phillips indicates and sexuality is a matter of gender.
With Nava’s writing style, despite having logically-arranged sections, it is at times difficult to understand her main points as opposed to secondary points. Her thesis is rather multifold in arguing against Phillips while carving her own niche in postwar gender and race. Her strength lies in its myriad sources, which she appropriately references and cites throughout the article. Interestingly, she places the sources in the margins, which is helpful for the reader.
Despite the fact that Nava is arguing against Phillips’s overarching claim involving white British writers and their handling of migrants in creative writing works, Nava does not refer back to Phillips much in the article. She only really discusses him in the section entitled “Problem” which also contains a direct quotation from his work. To better address Phillips, she should have addressed him better throughout because it is easy to get lost in the variety of other sources.
I intend to use this article as a sociological and culturally historical base for my research paper. Nava’s article is strong and is applicable to Andrea Levy’s Small Island. The attitudes and actions of Queenie, the white British woman, exemplify Nava’s work. Queenie takes in black migrant boarders and becomes pregnant by a black man. Queenie writes these people into history by her actions, but nothing is easy with the interracial relationship, as she ends up giving away her non-white baby to Hortense and Gilbert. Despite a few moments of confusion and not addressing Phillips’s argument well throughout the piece, this article is invaluable with connecting gender and race in postwar Britain.
Woodcock, Bruce. “Small Island, Crossing Cultures.” Wasafari 23.2 (2008): 50-55.
Woodcock begins his article on Small Island by discussing the complexities of the rather simplistic title. Within the title, one can read many aspects of culture of Jamaica and Britain. Woodcock presents his interpretation of the title. He writes that the characters are small islands “needing to learn to live alongside and adapt to each other” (50).
Through exploring and including large excerpts from Small Island as well as doing a literary review on Paul Gilroy’s After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture? Woodcock analyzes the political culture affected by racial relationships in postwar Britain. He explains that migrants into Britain transformed not only migrants’ experiences but white British citizens’ culture as well. He comments on Levy’s tackling of racism (biologically, linguistically, and symbolically). Levy uses displaced characters to symbolize the diasporas following World War II. She also uses the theme of displacement in her incorporation of the hurricane, war, and Windrush, and Queenie to explore “displacement and disorientation” (52). He also explains that Gilroy emphasizes the impact of war on the changing of British society while Levy challenges the concept of the wartime myth of national unity. Furthermore, Woodcock uniquely states these migrants formed their own identity of place in Britain because it was in shambles.
Woodcock does a nice job placing his thesis near the beginning. After building up discussion about the novel’s title, he introduces his new idea of the characters as small islands. He organizes the article fairly well, mixing in historical and cultural background with literary excerpts and his own conclusions. He pulls from outside sources, which, for the most part, aid his argument. However, on page 53 towards the end, he incorporates Yasmin, a movie of the post 9/11 world, which feels like it is tossed in and unconnected. He attempts to show the spread of racism to “new racism” involving cultural and ethnic identity, but this idea feels out of touch with the rest of the piece.
Like Nava, Woodcock explores the characters’ gendering. He focuses on masculinity as well as mentions some femininity issues. He works to position his argument against the grain of Paul Gilroy’s explanations of colonial influence on migrant communities and the continuation of the war ambience in post-war Britain. While Woodcock uses direct quotations from Gilroy’s work, the quotations are extensive to the point that one questions if the entire quotation is necessary. Furthermore, Woodcock does not directly connect all direct quotations to his intentions for this article. Therefore, such as when he mentions Gilroy’s view on Britain’s continued citation of anti-Nazi war on page 52, Woodcock merely drops in large quotations. These extensive quotations without great explanation occur also with his textual excerpts from Small Island. He will drop in a quotation but not fully reflect on the quotation’s content.
Despite these minor critiques of this article, Woodcock makes very valid arguments when he explores each character as a small island and ultimately concludes that Levy proves it “is absolutely necessary to continue to imagine, if the room for social maneuver on this small island is not to become even smaller” (54). Woodcock adds specificity and direct relation to Small Island with some of the content of the Nava article, regarding gender and identity. It brings new ideas with each individual character, whether it is considering Bernard’s masculinity or Queenie’s background with racism, showing each as an individual island. These characters are microcosms of society. Furthermore, Woodcock evidences the identity of place and the migrants’ ability to create place from destruction. Additionally, he offers some possible resources from The Guardian to research. I will perhaps use this article to explore Woodcock’s notion of Levy’s themes echoing diaspora, especially pertaining to Queenie as protofeminist joining cultures.
McLeod, John. “Postcolonial Fictions of Adoption.” Critical Survey 18.6 (2006): 45-55. Web.
3 Nov. 2010.
In this article, John McLeod examines the role and perception of child adoption in three postcolonial fictional works that were written around the same time: Andrea Levy’s Small Island (2004), Caryl Phillips’ Crossing the River (1993) and Buchi Emecheta’s The New Tribe (2000). McLeod connects these to the infamous postcolonial work The Lonely Londoners by Sam Selvon and the character Galahad’s supposed fatherhood that is quickly swept under the novel’s rug. McLeod states that with postcolonial fiction involving Britain, “writing about adopted children is a way of engaging critically with received filiative notions of race, nation and culture” (47).
McLeod builds up to this thesis using the lens of Edward Said’s ideas about filiative (birthed within a family) and affiliative (not birthed within a family, such as adoption). Then he focuses on how affiliative productions like child adoption expose national filiative ideas about race and culture despite having the pretense of not caring about those things and only caring about a child’s love. He gives a brief history of adoption in Britain and then mentions Jackie Kay’s The Adoption Papers as submitting information racial preference with adoption. He notes that adoption is a “social administration” which serves as metonymy for a nation’s ideas about race within a family.
From this interdisciplinary background information, McLeod discusses how the three postcolonial fiction works explore the “assumptions, contradictions and cost of adoptive practices” (48). Regarding Small Island, Queenie is thrown into emergency mode when her husband, Bernard, who she believe died in the war, returned home. Queenie was pregnant with a non-white child and despite Bernard’s insistence that they keep the baby, Queenie alludes that the exposure of race will one day prove tense in the family. Thus, she asks Gilbert and Hortense, Jamaican immigrants, to take the child. McLeod points out that this method of adoption shows the confusion of mixed-race families and how adoption is a “subversive agency of family relations” regarding what is normal and abnormal in society. McLeod connects this example with its connection of the public discourse of belonging that still persists.
Throughout this article, McLeod constantly refers back to his thesis statement, connecting the various works with his main idea. He also links the content of the fictional works with the reality of British public discourse on belonging, explaining these “fictional” works have reality included within them. The article is well organized and flows well from his discussion of each work because he constantly connects the works with his thesis statement.
Furthermore, through using literary and nonliterary sources, McLeod uses an interdisciplinary approach to explain an interdisciplinary thesis. He uses these sources well throughout the article, using some direct quotations that he explains thoroughly and connects to his ideas. McLeod reviews previous literature on issues of multi-racial adoptions in order to add another layer involving postcolonial fictional works to further prove the social construction of adoption in postwar Britain.
McLeod’s work connects well with other articles I have read. McLeod’s interpretation of Queenie ties into what Nava comments about white British women and their relations with black immigrants. Furthermore, McLeod’s work fits with Woodcock’s explanation of Queenie’s background and assumptions of working to weave a multicultural blanket, although experiencing disruption and diaspora within it. I will use this source as a main source in my research project as it focuses on the notion of adoption with a mixed-race child, part of Queenie’s world.
20.6 (2006): 671-82. Web. 14 Oct. 2010.
Mica Nava is responding to Caryl Phillips, black British Caribbean novelist, who argued that most British creative writers in the post- World War II years ignored the migrant increase in Britain. Nava takes this argument and uses to it to explore the connection between gender and racial in postwar Britain. She questions the ways men and women as authors wrote about race and sexuality between races. Ultimately, they allow the audience to reflect on how gender and racial difference opinions has altered over the course of time since World War II.
Nava explicitly states that her focus recognizes that racism is a contested field. She explores this field through focusing on urban cosmopolitanism and its representations on twentieth-century life as well gendered opinions on racial difference. Exploring this gendered difference through various texts (movies and writings), Nava exposes how male and female writers devise varying views of racial difference. She includes direct quotations as well as still photos from the films she discusses. She explores the primary sources as well as secondary sources commenting on these primary sources and other theoretical works such as Stanley Cohen’s States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. Furthermore, she divides the article into three sections: problem, context, fiction and film examples, and a final reflection section entitled “In Hindsight.”
Looking at these issues through a gender-focused lens, Nava gives the context that white British women were more open to associating with black males than white males and that some would even go to a movie or dance with a non-white person (672). She concludes that the work of white women writers dealing with black migrants cannot be essentialized. Nava states that both white and black male writers sexualized the interracial relationships that women writers just wrote about. Nava emphasizes Sam Selvon’s The Lonely Londoners as sexualizing interracial relationships, but not really giving women identities. The male authors suggest racial minorities are not as overlooked as Caryl Phillips indicates and sexuality is a matter of gender.
With Nava’s writing style, despite having logically-arranged sections, it is at times difficult to understand her main points as opposed to secondary points. Her thesis is rather multifold in arguing against Phillips while carving her own niche in postwar gender and race. Her strength lies in its myriad sources, which she appropriately references and cites throughout the article. Interestingly, she places the sources in the margins, which is helpful for the reader.
Despite the fact that Nava is arguing against Phillips’s overarching claim involving white British writers and their handling of migrants in creative writing works, Nava does not refer back to Phillips much in the article. She only really discusses him in the section entitled “Problem” which also contains a direct quotation from his work. To better address Phillips, she should have addressed him better throughout because it is easy to get lost in the variety of other sources.
I intend to use this article as a sociological and culturally historical base for my research paper. Nava’s article is strong and is applicable to Andrea Levy’s Small Island. The attitudes and actions of Queenie, the white British woman, exemplify Nava’s work. Queenie takes in black migrant boarders and becomes pregnant by a black man. Queenie writes these people into history by her actions, but nothing is easy with the interracial relationship, as she ends up giving away her non-white baby to Hortense and Gilbert. Despite a few moments of confusion and not addressing Phillips’s argument well throughout the piece, this article is invaluable with connecting gender and race in postwar Britain.
Woodcock, Bruce. “Small Island, Crossing Cultures.” Wasafari 23.2 (2008): 50-55.
Woodcock begins his article on Small Island by discussing the complexities of the rather simplistic title. Within the title, one can read many aspects of culture of Jamaica and Britain. Woodcock presents his interpretation of the title. He writes that the characters are small islands “needing to learn to live alongside and adapt to each other” (50).
Through exploring and including large excerpts from Small Island as well as doing a literary review on Paul Gilroy’s After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture? Woodcock analyzes the political culture affected by racial relationships in postwar Britain. He explains that migrants into Britain transformed not only migrants’ experiences but white British citizens’ culture as well. He comments on Levy’s tackling of racism (biologically, linguistically, and symbolically). Levy uses displaced characters to symbolize the diasporas following World War II. She also uses the theme of displacement in her incorporation of the hurricane, war, and Windrush, and Queenie to explore “displacement and disorientation” (52). He also explains that Gilroy emphasizes the impact of war on the changing of British society while Levy challenges the concept of the wartime myth of national unity. Furthermore, Woodcock uniquely states these migrants formed their own identity of place in Britain because it was in shambles.
Woodcock does a nice job placing his thesis near the beginning. After building up discussion about the novel’s title, he introduces his new idea of the characters as small islands. He organizes the article fairly well, mixing in historical and cultural background with literary excerpts and his own conclusions. He pulls from outside sources, which, for the most part, aid his argument. However, on page 53 towards the end, he incorporates Yasmin, a movie of the post 9/11 world, which feels like it is tossed in and unconnected. He attempts to show the spread of racism to “new racism” involving cultural and ethnic identity, but this idea feels out of touch with the rest of the piece.
Like Nava, Woodcock explores the characters’ gendering. He focuses on masculinity as well as mentions some femininity issues. He works to position his argument against the grain of Paul Gilroy’s explanations of colonial influence on migrant communities and the continuation of the war ambience in post-war Britain. While Woodcock uses direct quotations from Gilroy’s work, the quotations are extensive to the point that one questions if the entire quotation is necessary. Furthermore, Woodcock does not directly connect all direct quotations to his intentions for this article. Therefore, such as when he mentions Gilroy’s view on Britain’s continued citation of anti-Nazi war on page 52, Woodcock merely drops in large quotations. These extensive quotations without great explanation occur also with his textual excerpts from Small Island. He will drop in a quotation but not fully reflect on the quotation’s content.
Despite these minor critiques of this article, Woodcock makes very valid arguments when he explores each character as a small island and ultimately concludes that Levy proves it “is absolutely necessary to continue to imagine, if the room for social maneuver on this small island is not to become even smaller” (54). Woodcock adds specificity and direct relation to Small Island with some of the content of the Nava article, regarding gender and identity. It brings new ideas with each individual character, whether it is considering Bernard’s masculinity or Queenie’s background with racism, showing each as an individual island. These characters are microcosms of society. Furthermore, Woodcock evidences the identity of place and the migrants’ ability to create place from destruction. Additionally, he offers some possible resources from The Guardian to research. I will perhaps use this article to explore Woodcock’s notion of Levy’s themes echoing diaspora, especially pertaining to Queenie as protofeminist joining cultures.
McLeod, John. “Postcolonial Fictions of Adoption.” Critical Survey 18.6 (2006): 45-55. Web.
3 Nov. 2010.
In this article, John McLeod examines the role and perception of child adoption in three postcolonial fictional works that were written around the same time: Andrea Levy’s Small Island (2004), Caryl Phillips’ Crossing the River (1993) and Buchi Emecheta’s The New Tribe (2000). McLeod connects these to the infamous postcolonial work The Lonely Londoners by Sam Selvon and the character Galahad’s supposed fatherhood that is quickly swept under the novel’s rug. McLeod states that with postcolonial fiction involving Britain, “writing about adopted children is a way of engaging critically with received filiative notions of race, nation and culture” (47).
McLeod builds up to this thesis using the lens of Edward Said’s ideas about filiative (birthed within a family) and affiliative (not birthed within a family, such as adoption). Then he focuses on how affiliative productions like child adoption expose national filiative ideas about race and culture despite having the pretense of not caring about those things and only caring about a child’s love. He gives a brief history of adoption in Britain and then mentions Jackie Kay’s The Adoption Papers as submitting information racial preference with adoption. He notes that adoption is a “social administration” which serves as metonymy for a nation’s ideas about race within a family.
From this interdisciplinary background information, McLeod discusses how the three postcolonial fiction works explore the “assumptions, contradictions and cost of adoptive practices” (48). Regarding Small Island, Queenie is thrown into emergency mode when her husband, Bernard, who she believe died in the war, returned home. Queenie was pregnant with a non-white child and despite Bernard’s insistence that they keep the baby, Queenie alludes that the exposure of race will one day prove tense in the family. Thus, she asks Gilbert and Hortense, Jamaican immigrants, to take the child. McLeod points out that this method of adoption shows the confusion of mixed-race families and how adoption is a “subversive agency of family relations” regarding what is normal and abnormal in society. McLeod connects this example with its connection of the public discourse of belonging that still persists.
Throughout this article, McLeod constantly refers back to his thesis statement, connecting the various works with his main idea. He also links the content of the fictional works with the reality of British public discourse on belonging, explaining these “fictional” works have reality included within them. The article is well organized and flows well from his discussion of each work because he constantly connects the works with his thesis statement.
Furthermore, through using literary and nonliterary sources, McLeod uses an interdisciplinary approach to explain an interdisciplinary thesis. He uses these sources well throughout the article, using some direct quotations that he explains thoroughly and connects to his ideas. McLeod reviews previous literature on issues of multi-racial adoptions in order to add another layer involving postcolonial fictional works to further prove the social construction of adoption in postwar Britain.
McLeod’s work connects well with other articles I have read. McLeod’s interpretation of Queenie ties into what Nava comments about white British women and their relations with black immigrants. Furthermore, McLeod’s work fits with Woodcock’s explanation of Queenie’s background and assumptions of working to weave a multicultural blanket, although experiencing disruption and diaspora within it. I will use this source as a main source in my research project as it focuses on the notion of adoption with a mixed-race child, part of Queenie’s world.
