Zoe Gilbert’s Folk and the Island Politics of the Mosaic Novel
Zoe Gilbert’s Folk was published to almost unanimous praise in 2018 but also bafflement. Reviewers struggled to define the book as a novel as well as its meaning; frequently, they lapsed back on the recent Brexit referendum and the text’s reclamation of folk traditions as a sign of its allegorical i...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/jsse, |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autor: | |
| Médium: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Jazyk: | Anglais |
| Vydáno: |
Journal of the Short Story in English
2024
|
| On-line přístup: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Shrnutí: | Zoe Gilbert’s Folk was published to almost unanimous praise in 2018 but also bafflement. Reviewers struggled to define the book as a novel as well as its meaning; frequently, they lapsed back on the recent Brexit referendum and the text’s reclamation of folk traditions as a sign of its allegorical intent. This contribution responds by regarding the text’s generic instability as integral to its critique of “folk” as a constituent element of local and national identity. In particular, the article explores the fraught internal and external politics of the Isle of Man: the model for the mythical island of Neverness. The article begins by taking Gilbert’s definition of the text as a novel at face value and examining it in relation to the ‘mosaic novel,’ a term common in fantasy and science fiction, and broadly synonymous with the ‘short story cycle’ in short story criticism. This taxonomic dispute, though, is part of a much wider development in which orality has not only become a central feature of contemporary fiction but also critically reflects on the oral tradition. The critical value of this reflection can be seen in how “folk” was exposed as a construction of middle-class collectors at the expense of the working classes: an erasure that continues to operate in the politics of the Isle of Man where the island economy has grown to the detriment of its working-class inhabitants. Lastly, the article returns to an analysis of Gilbert’s text and demonstrates how its worldbuilding does not work allegorically but critically, questioning the idea of “folk,” unsettling historical narratives, and repositioning marginal and subaltern voices, in particular, the lives of working-class women. |
|---|