Forced Migration Narratives and the Nation-State: 'Out' and 'Go, Went, Gone'.

This article offers a critical comparison of representations of forced migration and law in Out (1964) by Christine Brooke-Rose and Go, Went, Gone (2015) by Jenny Erpenbeck. The literary value of forced migration themes can be seen in how they act as a pivot point between literary imaginaries, the representation of trauma, and the real-world effects of law and politics on displaced people. Brooke-Rose's Out explores the supposed cultural decline of mid-twentieth century Britain through a tension between identity politics and law. By contrast, Erpenbeck's Go, Went, Gone [Gehen, ging, gegangen] uses the well-worn postcolonial trope of exile to frame its story of conversion. Where Out and other literary works stage a socio-cultural change wrought in the wake of forced migration, Go, Went, Gone presents a narrative of contrition for its protagonist. Both Brooke-Rose's and Erpenbeck's narratives hinge on their protagonists negotiating the legal complexities that govern refugees of forced migration. This article will explore how these novels offer a glimpse of the conservation of the modern nation-state that is a real-world site of the legal, cultural, and political circumscription of people displaced by forced migration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Critique is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)