scriptiehelemaal

8/3/2019 scriptiehelemaal

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/scriptiehelemaal 1/88

1

A Voyage through

HistoryComparing Julian Barnes A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters to

Elisabeth Wesselings descriptions of the postmodernist historical novel A.M. Hoogenboom - 9628525Doctoraal scriptie Engelse Taal en Cultuur augustus 20051e begeleider: dr. P.C.J.M. Franssen2e begeleider: dr. R.G.J.L. Supheert Cijfer: 7



2

Table of Contents 2

Preface 3

1. Introduction 5

2. The Historical Novel: From Scott to Postmodernism 8

The Origination of the Historical Novel 8Imitation and Emulation 10The Passing of Scotts Popularity and other Changes in the Literary Field 12Changes in the Early Twentieth Century 15The Development of Alternatives 16From Modernism to Postmodernism 18Postmodernist Self-Reflexivity 26Historiography in the Making 27History in the Making 29

3. Self-reflexivity in A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters 30

Historiography in the Making 32History in the Making 47

4. Counterfactual Fiction and Uchronian Fiction in A History of the 51World in 10 ½ Chapters

Counterfactual Conjecture 51Uchronian Fiction 64

5. Reviewing the Results 70

Uchronian Fiction or Self-reflexivity 70Parenthesis 74

Conclusion 85

References 87



3

Preface

Writing this thesis has been quite a journey for me. Looking back, I cannot remember

exactly why I chose to write my thesis on A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters. I do

remember that I took a class on postmodernist literature, taught by Aleid Fokkema, and that

during this course I was introduced to the novel. Practical thinking made me consider a book

for my thesis which I had become familiar with during one of the courses I had attended,

and for some reason I ended up picking this novel. I asked Aleid Fokkema to be my mentor

and she agreed. I think I started off doing not exactly badly, I increasingly spent less and

less time on my thesis because to personal problems. Finally, I had to stop break off working

on my thesis. For a year I did not study at all. In September 2004, I made a fresh start.

Aleid Fokkema agreed to be my mentor again and I resumed working on my thesis. All in all,

the process of finishing my thesis has not been an easy one. I still struggled with personal

issues and working on my thesis was often a real battle for me. Another bump in the road

was that Aleid Fokkema had to break off her mentorship. She arranged a new mentor for

me, Dr Paul Franssen. Unfortunately this transfer lead to some delay, but the mentorship of

Dr Paul Franssen has worked out. Today I finish my thesis and this is very special to me.

There have been times when I considered breaking off my studies completely, and times

when I did not think I would ever be able to finish my thesis, but after hard work and many

struggles, I have succeeded, and this is great! If not fantastic.

I do not feel I have succeeded all on my own. Friends and family have been there for

me during my difficult times when I had stopped studying, and during my new effort to write

my thesis. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my mum and dad for patience and,

not unimportant, financial support. I would like to thank my friends Marleen, Anne-Marie,

Hester, Christine and Saskia for their patience and support and good advice. Besides this, I

need to thank God for being there for me through it all.



4

One other thing I would like to mention, is that in the long process of working on

this thesis, Barnes novel has remained interesting to me. The novel, as well as the critical

framework I used for my thesis, have proved to be tough material for me to deal with. Still,

for most of the time I could not help but like Barnes book, if only for the sense of humour

that is displayed in it. Allow me the freedom to quote you two passages from the text. The

first is from Parenthesis, the half chapter in the novel. This fragment is taken from a

passage where an Indian tribe is described which thrived, so that the Indians had a lot of

time on their hands. Barnes relates how stealing from one another became what they liked

to do and what they celebrated (235). This is where a humorous passage comes in:

As they staggered out of their tepees and another faultless day came smooching in from the Pacific, they

would sniff the honeyed air and ask one another what theyd got up to the previous night. The answer

would be a shy confession or smug boast of theft. Old Redface had his blanket pilfered again by

Little Grey Wolf. Well, did you ever? Hes coming along, that Little Grey Wolf. And what did you get up

to? Me? Oh, I just snitched the eyebrows from the top of the totem-pole. Oh, not that one again.

Bo-ring.

Finally, a passage from chapter nine, Project Ararat. Spike Tiggler, back from the moon,

talks to his wife and utters this beautiful line: I went 240,000 miles to see the moon and it

was the earth that was really worth looking at (259).

Albertina Hoogenboom



5

Chapter 1

Introduction

Ever since Julian Barnes published his first novel Metroland in 1980, his work has been

received with much attention, by reviewers as well as by literary critics and, of course, the

reading public. Especially since Flauberts Parrot was published in 1984, every new

publication of Barnes work has spurred increased activity at reviewers desks, bookshop

counters, even on the internet and in university classes. This production of activity indicates

that Barnes certainly has become an author of importance. People have opinions about him,

his writing affects them.

A number of critics have incorporated comments on Barnes in their writing on

postmodernism, or have labelled his work explicitly as postmodernist, for instance Theo

Dhaen, Linda Hutcheon, Elisabeth Wesseling.1 They have used Barnes work to illustrate

their observations about postmodernist writing. In this thesis I would like to examine one of

Barnes novels, A History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters, in relation to postmodernism, the

literary current that some critics have linked him to.

About postmodernism, the last word has not yet been spoken. Ever since the term

was first used in the 1930s, and was more frequently used in the 1950s and 60s and from

then on, critics have struggled with defining it. Contemporary critics agree that it has now

become a label not just for a literary period, but for a wider cultural phenomenon, including

fields such as architecture, the arts, philosophy and theology. In literature, it is still a current

notion, and a much-debated issue. What critics seem to have most reservations about, is to

give an overall definition of postmodernism. They describe a number of characteristics which

1 Theo Dhaen, Het Postmodernisme in de Literatuur (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij de Arbeiderspers, 1988), on pages126 and 128.Linda Hutcheon, The Pastime of Past Time: Fiction, History, Historiographic Metafiction, Postmodern Genres,ed. Marjorie Perloff (Norman/London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988). E.g.: Postmodern novels likeFlauberts Parrot [] imply that . Barnes wrote Flauberts Parrot..Elisabeth Wesseling, Writing History as a Prophet: Postmodernist Innovations of the Historical Novel(Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1991), e.g. on page 121.



6

they think might be called postmodern, but they do not claim: So, this is what

postmodernism is all about. Hans Bertens goes as far as saying that in most concepts, and

in practically all recent concepts of postmodernism the matter of ontological uncertainty is

absolutely central.

2

However, as was said, most critics keep to giving a number of concepts

that seem to characterise postmodernist works. Some examples of these concepts are:

ontological doubt, or plurality, an interest in (views on) history, the notion of the ex-centric,

and an emphasis on values and normative codes, or on a lack of them. The first two of the

concepts mentioned will be explained somewhat further. The forwarding of ontological issues

is an activity that is noticed by all critics of Postmodernism. As mentioned before, Hans

Bertens labels it as its central notion. The denial of any metaphysical, transcendental, or

essentialistic order seems to me to be the central given of postmodernism. The

postmodernist author rejects absolute truths. He rejects any ontological

embedding/anchoring, as well as every system of values, every order, which presents itself

as such. 3

Another phenomenon that has been marked by a number of critics is the

postmodernist focus on history and on the perception of history. For example, in Het

Postmodernisme in de Literatuur, Hans Bertens, speaks of de talrijke historische romans die

het postmodernisme telt (translated: postmodernisms many historical novels).4 In A

Poetics of Postmodernism, Linda Hutcheon writes about historiographic metafiction, which

is to her characteristic of postmodernism. Elisabeth Wesseling has devoted her doctoral

thesis to a critical study of the postmodernist attitude towards history: Writing History as a

2 Hans Bertens, "The Postmodern Weltanschauung and its Relation with Modernism: An Introductory Survey," Approaching Postmodernism: Papers presented at a Workshop on Postmodernism, 21-23 September 1984,University of Utrecht, Douwe Fokkema and Hans Bertens 1986. 46.3 Hans Bertens, Het Postmodernisme in de Literatuur, Van het Postmodernisme. (De Kunstreeks), ed. J.Boomgaard, Sebastian Lopez. (Amsterdam: Sua, 1985), 24-25. (Original quote: "De ontkenning van elkemetafysische, transcendente, of essentialistische orde lijkt mij het centrale gegeven van het postmodernisme. Depostmoderne schrijver wijst absolute waarheden af. Hij verwerpt elke ontologische verankering, en ook elksysteem van waarden, elke ordening, die zich als zodanig presenteert.")4 Hans Bertens, Het Postmodernisme in de Literatuur (Amsterdam: Synthese, 1988) 128.



7

Prophet: Postmodernist Innovations of the Historical Novel.5 She states: the predominance

of historical subject matter in postmodernist fictions can be regarded as something of a

revival for the historical novel (2). She distinguishes what she calls the postmodernist

historical novel, and explores its relationship to the classical and modern historical novel. In

doing so, she comes to a description of the characteristics of this subdivision of

postmodernist fiction (Wesseling vii).

An interest in history can be found in Barnes work as well, for instance in the novels

Flauberts Parrot (1984), Staring at the Sun (1986) and A History of the World in 10 ½

Chapters. In this thesis, I would like to take a closer look at A History of the World in 10 ½

Chapters. More concretely, I would like to examine to what extent A History of the World in

10 ½ Chapters bears the characteristics of a postmodernist historical novel as they are

described by Elisabeth Wesseling, and also, if and how the novel deviates from Wesselings

descriptions, and what that deviation might mean. In short the question of this thesis is:

does Julian Barnes A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters fit Wesselings description of the

postmodernist historical novel? To answer this question, the following steps will be taken.

First, in chapter two, I will make clear what Elisabeth Wesseling means with the term

postmodernist historical fiction. Secondly I will examine what examples can be found in

Barnes novel of the characteristics of postmodernist historical fiction as they have been

described by Wesseling. This will be done in chapters three and four. In chapter five, the

results from chapters three and four will be reviewed, and it will be assessed if and how

Barnes novel agrees with Wesselings descriptions of postmodernist historical fiction.

5 This doctoral thesis has been published as a book: Elisabeth Wesseling, Writing History as a Prophet:Postmodernist Innovations of the Historical Novel (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1991).



8

Chapter 2

The Historical Novel: From Scott to Postmodernism

The aim of this chapter is to expound what Elisabeth Wesseling means exactly with the term

postmodernist historical fiction. Wesseling does not present a clear-cut definition of the

postmodernist historical novel. She outlines the genre of historical fiction as it has developed

from around 1800 to the end of the 1980's, and ends up with a number of features which in

her view characterise the postmodernist embodiment of the historical novel. A number of

these features will be employed in analysing a historical novel from 1989, Julian Barness A

History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters, with the aim of establishing to which extent the novel

fits Wesselings descriptions of the postmodernist historical novel.

This chapter of my thesis presents a summary of Wesselings outline of the historical

novel, from its origins to its postmodernist embodiment. This summary is to make clear what

the characteristics of the historical novel were in the past, and how the genre has changed in

the course of time. Some information from Wesselings survey has not been included as I did

not regard it relevant to my thesis. The descriptions of postmodernist fiction that this chapter

ends with will be used in the following chapters to examine Barnes novel.

The Origination of the Historical Novel

According to Wesseling, the genre of historical fiction entered a new phase in the late

twentieth century, through postmodernist innovations. Certain new features that had been

deviations from the usual generic repertoire at first became more commonplace, even

characteristic of the genre. In order to make clear what postmodernist historical fiction

imports, it is therefore useful to explore what the genre of historical fiction looked like before

these changes took place.

The origination of the historical novel may be situated toward the end of the



9

eighteenth century, when novelists started writing novels that simulated historicity in an

attempt to uplift the prestige of their field of writing. However, the major breakthrough of

the historical novel, and its definite establishment as a genre came with Sir Walter Scott and

his Waverley, or 'Tis Sixty Years Since (1814) and the historical novels he wrote after that,

commonly referred to as the Waverley Novels. One characteristic of the Waverley Novels,

and of the early nineteenth-century historical novel in general, is the position the genre took

up with regard to historiography. According to Wesseling, the historical novel took up a

complementary position towards historiography. The historical novel presented itself as a

vehicle for conveying historical knowledge (Wesseling 33). There were differences between

the historical novel and historiography as well. The fictional element of the historical novel

was not something its proponents tried to cover up. [T]hey held that the use of invention in

the service of vivification, embellishment, and the fleshing out of details where

historiography only offered rough outlines was a highly desirable compensation for the

shortcomings of a stylistically unattractive historiography (Wesseling 32). Further on in her

book, Wesseling mentions that historical novelists defended the use of invention in their

works on didactic grounds: the historical novel could be a bridge between the reading public

and historiography, which probably was tougher material to dig into. According to Wesseling,

Scott argued that if readers would content themselves with mere appetizers,6 a modicum of

knowledge would still be conveyed (45).7 It is useful to note that apart from minor

alterations of historical data, Scott did not approve of gross violations of canonised history.

Besides openness about its own fictionality, another feature distinguished the

historical novel from historiography: the historical novel represented aspects of the past

that had as yet not been dealt with as extensively by historians, namely the daily lives of

ordinary people (Wesseling 33). Scott and his successors preferred domestic history to

political history for writing material.

6 The appetizer meaning the historical novel.7 I am presenting a quote from Wesseling on Scott; this is not a literal statement from Scott.



10

A facet of the Waverley Novels that frequently received attention was its moral

efficacy (Wesseling 47). Some of those who judged the Waverley Novels negatively in this

respect ascribed this to the shallowness of his heroes (Wesseling 47). Scott admitted to

being committed to historical rather than moral edification. His heroes were mediators,

employed in reflecting their perceptions to the reader, rather than instruments for instructive

revelations of an inner life. Wesseling states with respect to Scott's characters: Their

perceptual activities, combined with the learned expositions of the external, omniscient

narrator on the living circumstances of former epochs, make up an important part of the

external realism or couleur locale which counts as the hallmark of the historical novel (49).

Imitation and Emulation8

In the wake of the Waverley Novels, novelists further expanded the generic repertoire of

the historical novel, Wesseling comments (50). As for thematics, some of Scotts motifs

became standard topoi, and others were added. Concerning ideology, historical fiction

extended into diverging directions, from nationalism to Victorian morality (Wesseling 50).

As for historical subject matter novelists explored materials, which, taken all together, cover

the whole range of Western history from classical antiquity up to the near present

(Wesseling 50). Wesseling stresses the fact that novelists basically remained within the

matrix of the Waverley Novels, where strategies for integrating historical and fictional

materials are concerned (51). She adds:

Novelists retained the basic features of Scott's formula by placing fictional characters and their

adventures in the foreground, and by investigating how historical events impinged on the daily lives of

ordinary individuals, while avoiding anachronisms as much as the contemporary state of the

historiographical art would allow. Furthermore, they embedded characters in a closely detailed network

of material living circumstances by way of extensive descriptions of the costumes, architecture,

8 The title for this section is taken from Wesseling's own section on this subject matter, see Wesseling, p. 50.



11

landscape, manners, customs and the like of former epochs. Most novelists treaded in the footsteps of

Scott by locating the historical component of historical fiction in the recreation of the milieu of former

epochs, rather than in the representation of epoch-making events or world-historical figures. Even to

those nineteenth century authors who deliberately broke out of the confines of the Waverley model,

Scott's oeuvre still constituted a fixed point of reference. (51)

One nineteenth-century exception Wesseling mentions is

the fictional biography or vie romancée, which received definitive shape in the novels by Sir Edward

Bulwer Lytton within the context of the English literary tradition. Contrary to the bulk of nineteenth-

century historical fiction, Bulwers fiction not merely introduced thematic variations, but in fact altered

the formula for integrating the historical and the fictional component, as well as the genres relation to

historiography. Bulwer sought to emulate Scott by boosting the historical reliability of the genre. (51-52)

Bulwer's novels displayed a kind of historical fiction that strove after a more solid claim to

factual resonance. He engaged himself in quite thorough research, and did, as Scott had

done, use fragments of legend and folkloric oral tradition as sources for his narratives (52).

Besides this, he made historical individuals the heroes of his novels, and based his plots on

the recorded careers of their lives (52). Wesseling: This set-up gave him reason to claim

that his novels were made up of factual materials for the major part, and that the role of the

imagination was restricted to the divination of the inner motives which might have compelled

the subjects of his narratives to commit specific deeds (52).9 Bulwers historical fiction

stepped into a competitive position to historiography, instead of a supplementary one.

Bulwer claimed that the reader could directly turn to his novels for sound instruction that

could rival with historical studies for reliability [] Rather than supplementing history, he

sought to outdo the historian at his own job (52, 53). Wesseling mentions the writer James

C. Simmons, who viewed that, in Wesselings words, laboriously researched novels such as

9 Wesseling continues after this: This resulted in a new type of historical fiction which became a vogue in the1830s and 1840s (52).



12

Romola or The Cloister and the Hearth are just as much indebted to Bulwer as to Scott

(53).10

Scott's work influenced historiography, the novel at large, and the historical novel in

particular. Scott's influence on contemporary historiography concerned subject-matter and

style. Scott reinforced the interest in customs, manners, and material environment over and

against the focus on political history (Wesseling 53), indicated writing techniques and

reminded historians of the attractions of a dramatized entrance into the past (Wesseling

53). As for the novel at large, the classical model of historical fiction was of the utmost

importance to the development of the later realist novel (Wesseling 53). Finally, Scott's

influence on the genre of the historical novel can hardly be exaggerated, at least where the

first half of the nineteenth century is concerned, according to Wesseling (54). She states

that Scott's work took up a vanguard position in the evolution of both the historical novel

and its two neighbouring genres (54).11 It automatically follows from this that the further

development of the historical novel was linked up with the passing of Scott's prestige and

popularity later on in the nineteenth century (Wesseling 54).

The Passing of Scott's Popularity and Influence and other Changes in the Literary

Field

Wesseling explains that comparatively few scholars have busied themselves with asserting

when Scotts work began to be less esteemed. (Wesseling 54). Wesseling mentions two

critics who locate the decline of Scott's popularity with the reading public in the 1880's.

Concerning critical reception, Wesseling explains that Scott was a controversial writer, who

harvested both praise and blame [] often coming from the same critic. Yet, we can infer

10 Romola (1863): was written by George Eliot. The Cloister and the Hearth (1861) was written by Charles Reade.

The critic referred to is James Simmons. At this point, Wesseling does not refer specifically to one of Simmons works. She mentions two of them in her bibliography:-The Novelist as Historian: An Unexplored Tract of Victorian Historiography, Victorian Studies 14 (1971): 293-305. -The Novelist as Historian: Essays on the Victorian Historical Novel (Den Haag: Mouton, 1973).11 By neigbouring genres, Wesseling indicates historiography, and the novel in general.



13

from Hillhouses comprehensive study of the reception of the Waverley Novels12 that Scott

fared worse with the Victorian critics than with his contemporaries (Wesseling 55).

Victorians pointed to the shallowness in characterization and morals, and became

increasingly critical of Scott's treatment of history. Exposures of anachronisms and mistakes

in chronology become far more frequent than they had been during Scotts lifetime

(Wesseling 55). A third field to look at, when investigating the appreciation of Scott, is that

of historical fiction. Wesseling mentions Heinz-Joachim Müllenbrock, who locates a lull in the

production of historical fiction between the mid-1860s and the early 1890s and considers

that the historical novels that were written after this period either did not conform to the

Waverley model at all, or had but a tenuous relation to the more unhistorical embodiments

of the Waverley model (Wesseling 55). Müllenbrock argues that the fact that Scott's work

lost its model function had to do with developments in the novel in general, and in

historiography. For instance, Victorianism produced more pressing demands on novelists

concerning the display of moral acumen in [] analysis of their [his characters'] mental

lives, while holding on to external realism as well (Wesseling 56). Besides this, historicism

gained ground, which not only emphasized the historicity of outward living circumstances

[] but also of norms, values and even of human nature itself (Wesseling 56). To Scott, the

universality of human nature was a link with the past: As the historical novel derived its

right of existence from facilitating the entrance into the past, the novelist should make the

most of this link, according to Scott (Wesseling 57).

The developments mentioned above made the writing of historical fiction more

difficult. Already in 1847 an anonymous critic argued that, in Wesseling's words, the

retrieval of the consciousness of our ancestors is a well-nigh impossible enterprise (57).

Wesseling summarizes a quote from the anonymous critic on the issue as: the novelist can

at best attain external realism, but he is almost bound to go awry where the detailing of the

12 James Hillhouse, The Waverley Novels and Their Critics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1936).



14

inner life is concerned (57). Writing historical fiction in the late-nineteenth century became

an increasingly difficult task. Wesseling concludes her chapter as follows: As the novel

became more and more committed to some sort of psychological realism around the turn of

the century, the difficulties mentioned by James,

13

that pivotal link between the two

centuries, would become an insurmountable obstacle and require of the ambitious novelist to

either ignore the genre altogether or invent radically new alternatives for the Waverley

model (58).

In the twentieth century, Scott's grip on eminent literature was gone. Wesseling

presents a quotation from Virginia Woolf from 1924 in which she states that Scott is one of

the authors who have no more impact on others, and Wesseling argues that at that time it

had seemingly become a general opinion that the form of the Waverley novels had become

outdated. Wesseling states on pages 67 and 68: I have argued that the nineteenth-century

historical novel was gradually cut off from its moorings in the novelistic and the

historiographical domain. Twentieth-century developments in the writing of fiction and

history but intensified this process. She explains that Practicing novelists themselves have

explained which features of Scott's fiction made the Waverley model passé in their eyes,

among whom Virginia Woolf (68). She says that Woolf criticized Scott on psychological

grounds (68). Woolf was discontent with the lack of psychological depth in The Waverley

Novels (68). On Woolf's criticism on Scott and on some contemporary colleagues Wesseling

states: Woolf blamed Scott and other materialists for their failure to do justice to the

complexity of human consciousness (68). Wesseling continues:

Virginia Woolf's essays testify to a transformation of literary norms and values which put a high price on

psychological introspection as an indispensable attribute of the novel form. Reality was considered to be

too complex and diffuse to be dealt with in a pseudo-objective manner which neglects to pay due

attention to the consciousness that perceives and interprets reality, or so Woolf argued. (68)

13 I.e. the difficulties of representing the consciousness of individuals from the past. This is mentioned in a quotefrom Henry James (Wesseling 58).



15

Both Virginia Woolf and Hella Haasse, a Dutch historical novelist, connect

the preoccupation with the individual consciousness to a changing perception of reality [] Both refer

to the fact that the idea of external reality as a stable and intelligible totality was becoming increasingly

problematic during the first half of this century, a development which fostered inquiries into the complex

relations between the knowing subject and the outer world. Within the realm of literary art, this

development was translated into a shift of interest away from the supposedly objective representation of

empirical reality toward an investigation of the ways in which the individual consciousness plays an

active and projecting, rather than a passive and reflecting role in forming images about itself and the

outer world. (Wesseling 69)

This applies to the Modernists, who, according to Wesseling, focused on the ways in which

the spatial and temporal aspects of external reality impinge on our consciousness (69).

Changes in the Early Twentieth Century

Wesseling comments as follows on developments in the field of historiography: The

intellectual developments referred to above14 did not leave the discipline of historiography

unaffected either. Here the idea of history as an orderly and meaningful process with an

inherent dynamics and purpose was thrown into doubt, which had inevitable consequences

for the status of historical knowledge (70). In the early twentieth century questions began

to arise in the field of the philosophy of history concerning the objectivity and impartiality of

professional historicist historiography (Wesseling 70). One of the more radical critics of

historicism was Theodor Lessing. He pointed out that the attribution of meaning and shape

[to history] proceeds according to the interests of the historian (71). Other matters brought

up by critics were the denial of an objective, autonomous existence of history (71) and the

perspectivist nature of historical knowledge (71). The former issue was based on the

14 This refers to the developments I represented in the text before this paragraph.



16

assumption that history only comes into existence as an object of the historian's thought

(71). The latter issue dealt with the fact that our versions of history are necessarily

determined by the interests of the present. Another topic, similar to this, was foregrounded

by R. G. Collingwood, who wrote about the a priori imagination (71), which means that

historians, before selecting their data and forming a picture of the past, already have an

image of that past which influences the selection of the data and the final picture they form.

The changing perceptions and the criticism on historicism and historiography were bound to

influence the literary genre of the historical novel.

As was mentioned above, the classical historical novel took up a complementary

position towards historiography and functioned as a means of propagating historical

knowledge. However, the critique of historicism made it increasingly difficult for novelists to

be able to substantiate their historiographical pretensions.

The Development of Alternatives

According to Elisabeth Wesseling, it was only after the Second World War that writers, with

the postmodernist innovations of the historical novel, began to develop an alternative for

the classical model in order to express an awareness of the fact that the meaning and

intelligibility of history could not be taken for granted anymore (73). In this phase the

historical novel is not so much complementary to historiography as it takes up a

metahistorical position towards it. Instead of propagating historical knowledge,

postmodernist writers inquire into the possibility, nature and use of historical knowledge

(73). This does not mean that in the first half of the twentieth century, no efforts at all were

made by innovative writers to search for ways of adopting historical materials. To some

extent the Modernists engaged themselves in this effort, although the works that resulted

from this effort were not immediately recognised as innovations of the genre of the historical

novel. Instead of focussing on the external world, modernist writers were more interested in



17

the inner world, or the individual consciousness, as Henry James called it (Wesseling 75).

With respect to historical fiction this concern resulted in (1) examinations of the ways in

which an awareness of the past shapes one's mental makeup, and (2) a continual concern

with the question of how knowledge of the past can be acquired in the first place.

Elizabeth Wesseling mentions three characteristics of modernist historical fiction:

-The subjectivisation of history. In Scott's novels, the characters were rather vehicles for

conveying historical information than of any interest in themselves, because the focus was

on depicting the external world. In modernist fiction, it is the other way around: history

becomes a vehicle, a determinant in the forming of a personality. The focus is on the

development of character, in which history plays a part. This gives way to a subjective use of

history.

- The transcendence of history. This relates to the way in which past and present were

traditionally linked. In classical historical fiction, different points of time in history were linked

as different stages in the same historical process. In modernist historical fiction, the links

between historical moments are drawn in various other ways, for instance, through mythical

motifs, similarity or repetition. The link becomes more of a symbolic one.

- Self-reflexivity. This concept concerns itself with epistemological issues. Wesseling states

her definition of self-reflexivity, which applies specifically to historical fiction (82), as

follows: a strategy, or rather a bundle of strategies, which disrupts the supposedly direct

relation between [] two levels of reality (83). With two levels of reality Wesseling refers

to the level of the res gestae of history (the deeds performed in the past) and the historia

rerum gestarum (the narratives about the res gestae) (82). Elizabeth Wesseling restricts

self-reflexivity in historical fiction to two expressions of this phenomenon: explicit

commentaries by historian-like characters, and multiple focalisation. The first feature adds a

narrative level, and stresses that history is a projection of the historian's consciousness. The

second feature is more implicit. It juxtaposes diverging views on the same subject matter,



18

without discriminating between true or false versions (83).

From Modernism to Postmodernism

Having described the modernist historical novel, Elizabeth Wesseling makes towards a

description of postmodernist historical fiction. Wesseling claims that not all of postmodernist

historical fiction can be seen as continuous with modernist self-reflexivity (93). A number

of postmodernist historical novels contains gross violations of canonised history (93), and,

according to Wesseling, much more can be said about this salient phenomenon when we

realize that postmodernist novels which falsify history have a metahistorical orientation and

generic context which diverge from self-reflexive historical fiction (94). Next, Wesseling

undertakes to depict the generic context she refers to.

Wesselings starting point for describing the generic context of historical novels that

alter canonised history is science fiction. Wesseling states that the postmodernist

infringements upon canonized history (94) can be seen as a hybrid of the historical novel

and science fiction. To explain this, Wesseling first shows a number of similarities between

science fiction and utopian fantasy. Next, she brings in the concepts of genre and mode

to clarify the relationship between utopian fantasy and science fiction. She claims: we may

state that the bulk of science fiction partakes of the utopian mode [] we can paraphrase

this observation by stating that science fiction has become the modern avatar of utopian

thought (96). Wesseling adds that the alternate worlds of the utopian mode were positioned

in a place somehow beyond the confines of empirical society, or in an unknown time, that

is, the future, and that science fiction has perpetuated both tendencies in its futurological

and cosmological variants (96). Wesseling adds to this the statement that more alternate

worlds are possible: they may also be projected backward in time, into the past (96). She

poses: Perhaps now the outlines of a possible rapprochement between the historical novel

and science fiction are becoming faintly visible (96), and: In order to detail the gradual



19

advances of the two genres, let me describe a number of ways in which the historical and

the utopian imagination can confront each other, and engage in an ever closer

correspondence (94). One of these ways is fiction in which utopian fantasies about an ideal

society tinge representations of the past (96). Another one is fiction in which nostalgic

dreams about the past affect conjectures about the future (96). However: the

futurological element in historical fiction, and the historical element in futurological fiction

remain implicit. The explicit settings of both types of fiction are clearly either the past or the

future (97). Having said this, Wesseling introduces the next step in her line of argument by

stating: A closer rapprochement between the two genres can be exemplified by novels

which combine features of both historical and science fiction within a single work (97). She

then discusses two novels that are set in the Middle Ages, and also use a typical science

fiction motif: time travel (97). In two of these novels, the main character is transported

from the present back into the Middle Ages. In one of these novels a dream initiates the leap

back in time, and in the other one, it is a blow on the head that launches the main

character to the Middle Ages. A third novel Wesseling mentions, pictures a man who

becomes unstuck in time, and travels to the alternate world of the planet Trafalmadore

(99). Wesseling concludes her section on these three novels by stating: these novels do

not yet overtly negate canonized history. Rather they embed historical materials within the

type of defamiliarizing context that one would associate with science fiction (99).

Wesseling moves on to a third stage in this entanglement of the historical novel and

science fiction, which merges historical materials and utopian fantasies about alternate

worlds in such a manner that alternate histories are the result (100). Wesseling continues:

Fictions which belong to this category change canonized history in ways one cannot ignore

(100). And later on she adds:

Changes are wrought upon canonized history by effecting shifts among the various factors that played a

role in a given historical situation or series of events. These shifts produce a counterfactual course of



20

events which can either be more or less desirable than the way in which things actually turned out.

Thus, historical events and persons may be transferred from one epoch to another, losers of a power

struggle may be turned into winners or vice versa, world-historical figures may be made to set out upon

an alternative course of action, causal weight may be shifted from one historical factor to another, etc.

(100)

Wesseling indicates that: Alternate histories are inspired by the notion that any given

historical situation implies a plethora of divergent possibilities that far exceed the possibilities

which happened to have been realized (100).

Wesseling states: To my knowledge, literary scholarship has not thus far paid much

attention to alternate histories (101). She reports that she has not yet found an English

term for alternate histories. However, The German and French languages [] have a highly

illuminative concept, namely Uchronie. The term is used in two different ways, only one of

which interests me here [] it has [] been used [] in order to refer to the type of

counterfactual fantasy which devises alternatives within the confines of documented history

(101). Wesseling adopts this term, only she continues to use it as the term uchronian

fantasy (or uchronian fiction).

Quoting the title of an 19th century work by Charles Renouvier, which to her captures

what uchronian fantasy conveys,15 Wesseling states: Uchronian fantasy locates utopia in

history, by imagining an apocryphal course of events, which clearly did not take place, but

which might have taken place (102), and: Uchronian fiction may be regarded as a

subspecies of counterfactual historical fiction, that is, fiction which deliberately departs from

canonized history. Counterfactual falsifications of history need not necessarily be informed by

clearcut utopian ideals, although this is often the case (102). Wesseling also explains that

the invention of alternate histories may be quite a rational and responsible intellectual

endeavor, which, as such, can be of interest to professional historiography (104). Wesseling

15 The title is: Uchronie. (LUtopie dans lHistoire.) Esquisse historique apocryphe du développement de lacivilisation européenne tel quil na pas été, tel quil aurait pu être.



21

ends her section on uchronian fiction with the following statement:

Viewing uchronian fiction as a crossbreed between science fiction and the historical novel, we may

distinguish the various contributions of the two genres to this mongrel form as follows. The historical

novel has contributed the subject matter of collective history and literary strategies for vivifying historical

materials, while science fiction has contributed the utopian mode, as well as strategies for altering a

given set of circumstances and deducing an alternate world around such premises by means of the

hypothetico-deductive mode of reasoning. (105)

The rest of Wesselings chapter on the entanglement (100) of the historical novel and

science fiction addresses three more issues. First Wesseling devotes some attention to the

Parodic Nature of Counterfactual Conjecture (105). She says: We may [] ascribe a

parodic aspect to counterfactual fantasies, in the sense that parodic texts incorporate their

target texts, and: Evidently, the target of counterfactual conjecture is the reservoir of

established historical facts and popular interpretations of those facts which makes up

canonized history (105).16

The second issue Wesseling addresses is that of The Political Implications of

Uchronian Fiction (110). She states: The political potential of postmodernist uchronian

fiction is realized in its exposure of the intimate connection between historical knowledge

and political power (110). She adds:

It is a commonplace that official historiography tends to write the history of the winners, a restriction

which has a lot to do with the demand that the historian found his statements on documentary evidence.

For the documents contain far more information about princes, statesmen, generals and other powerful

public figures than about subordinated or defeated peoples and social classes, who usually do not have

access to the channels of official culture and rarely make the records. The selective nature of the

historical records in itself already accounts for the inextricable entanglement of historical knowledge and

political power. If one strives to comply with institutionalised, academic criteria for validity by abiding by

16 It seems to me that Elizabeth Wesseling uses the terms counterfactual conjecture, counterfactual fantasy andcounterfactual fiction as synonyms.



22

the records, one not only aspires toward intellectual respectability but contributes to the perpetuation of

a given distribution of power. (110)

Wesseling points out that Uchronian fiction [] disputes the monopoly of the realized

possibilities on the land of reality by making alternate developments visible (110).17

Wesseling then pays attention to the legitimating function of historical knowledge (110).

Time and again, canonized history has been compromised by a legitimating role. If historical discourse

tacitly depicts history as an objective process with an inherent motin [sic] and purpose of its own, then

any particular status quo is to be regarded as the inevitable outcome of an inexorable development,

whose right of existence is beyond dispute and to whose extension into the future we must acceed. For

this reason, the seizure and continual extension of power is often accompanied by the rewriting of history

[] The legitimating function of historical knowledge explains why the counterfactual parodies of

postmodernist historical fiction seek to remind us of the contingency of history, as a necessary

precondition for the disruption of the status quo. It also explains why they attempt to inscribe the losers of

history into our historical memory. To counter canonized history with rival versions does not so much aim

at remedying the partiality of the first, [] but to strengthen the position of subordinated groups in the

present and to suggest possibilities for greater equality in the future. (110-111)

Wesseling indicates the tendency of writers of uchronian fiction to

identify sympathetically with those who suffered rather than made history, by redistributing the roles of

winners and losers in actual history. This counterfactual shift does not mean to compete with canonized

history where veracity is concerned. Rather, it aims to remind us of the power struggles which preceded

the institution of a specific distribution of power, and to make us aware of the contingency of the outcome

of such historical struggles. [] Therefore, uchronian fantasies are devised in the hope that, although they

are admittedly untrue, they may perhaps come true at some point in the future. (111)

17 The phrase land of reality refers to a quote from Winston Churchill which Wesseling presented just before thesentence Ive quoted here. It says: Once a great victory is won it dominates not only the future but the past. Allthe chains of consequence clink out as if they never could stop. The hopes that were shattered, the passions that were quelled, the sacrifices that were ineffectual are all swept out of the land of reality (Wesseling 110).



23

The paragraph that follows this quote is presented below:

Uchronian fantasy speculates about the future by way of a detour through the past. This detour, it

seems to me, is the only remaining possibility for utopian thinking in the face of the demise of

progressivist, meliorative views on the course of the historical process. The straightforward projection of

utopian ideals into the future presupposes the belief that human history proceeds through ever higher,

better phases. It has become utterly impossible to cherish this belief after the genocide of the two world

wars, the excesses of Stalinism and Western imperialism, and the threatening destruction of the natural

environment which have been brought about by [the] very thing in which many eighteenth- and

nineteenth-century writers had invested their hope for a better future: modern technology []

Moreover, counterfactual fantasy complies with the emphasis which contemporary social sciences and

philosophy place on the extent to which the individual subject is determined by linguistic and

languagelike social conventions. Where literature and literary theory are concerned, this shift in world

view has instigated a reorientation toward esthetic concepts such as invention, originality, autonomy,

indeed, on the concept of the individual subject in general, as articulated in the death-of-the-author

theme. Consequently, the imaginative anticipation of the future which attempts to raise itself above

extant social conventions has ceased to convince us. Uchronian fiction, however, does not attempt to

anticipate the future ex nihilo, but to imagine it from unrealized possibilities that lie dormant in the past.

(111-112)

Next, Wesseling introduces the Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes, who has described

the tragic course of twentieth-century history, and, indeed, the repeated successes of totalitarian

regimes in general, as the bitter fruits of the kind of utopian idealism which has been raised upon the

shaky grounds of historical amnesia. Some utopian thinkers can only hold out the promise of a happy

future by blotting out the past. Such unfounded idealism, Fuentes argues, is bound to degenerate into

either naïve optimism which lacks consciousness of the constraints upon our possibilities for creating a

relatively just society, or into cynical nihilism, when the stark contrast between airy dreams about the

future and the corruption of the present leads to severe disillusionment. Moreover, fantasies of the

future which suppress the past are amenable to totalitarianism:

But the problem with the future as either despair of beatitude is that it is a future considered in

the abstract: loosened from its historical bearings, separated from its cultural context and, thus,



24

easily kidnapped by a paramount philosophy manipulated by a paramount political or military

power (Fuentes 1986: 338)

[]

Fuentes tentatively answers the question of how the Latin-American continent can stake out a future for

itself by advocating a reconsideration of the past. This is not a call for a return to historical realism, but a

plea for an imaginative approach to history which searches for hitherto suppressed alternatives to the

status quo. (112-113)

Wesseling adds:

Thus, the type of historical consciousness which attempts to imagine the past from the perspective of

the losers rather than the winners of history is the most reliable guide to a hopeful future.18

[]

Fuentes essay19 greatly clarifies the liberties which postmodernist novelists take with canonized history.

To interpret their departures from established historical facts as irresponsible and facile erasures of the

distinction between fact and fiction amounts to being insufficiently aware of the emancipating political

ethos which informs a considerable number of postmodernist historical novels. (113)

In the last section of her chapter on the historical novel and science fiction, Wesseling

outlines a number of differences between modernist self-reflexivity and postmodernist

counterfactual parody. They give a useful picture of the major differences between

modernist and postmodernist historical fiction.

Both self-reflexivity and counterfactual conjecture relativize the distinction between fact and fiction, but

they do so from different perspectives. Modernist writing demonstrates how diverging meanings can be

attributed to the same fact, thereby bringing out the polyinterpretability of the historical record.

Postmodernist counterfactual conjecture, quite differently, speculates about ways in which events might

have taken an entirely different course, which foregrounds the malleability of the historical reality. (113)

18 It is not entirely clear to me whether this is Wesselings own conclusion; a conclusion she draws from havingdiscussed Fuentes material, or if it is a statement Wesseling uses to summarise Fuentes thinking.19 Carlos Fuentes, Remember the future, Salmagundi 68-69 (1986): 333-352.



25

Wesseling quotes from an André Maurois novel, in which an historian talks to an archangel:

if all Possibilities have the same validity, why bestow the title of real on the one which I have lived,

and that of unrealised on those others which, you say, are equally valid? (Maurois 1931: 53).20 Thus,

postmodernist counterfactual conjecture derives the problematic nature of the distinction between fact

and fiction from the contingency of the historical fact.

The phrasing of the above quotation21 also points to a second difference between the two sets

of strategies as implemented in modernist and postmodernist writing. Maurois historian expresses an

awareness of the fact that the distinction between fact and fiction is not only an epistemological

problem. The epithet real is, indeed, a title, which bestows a dignity upon the phenomena thus

branded which implies a great deal more than their mere truth. Versions of history that receive this title

are not only imbued with epistemological but also with political superiority to versions that have not

come true. The metahistorical implications of counterfactual conjecture therefore reach beyond

epistemology to an exposure of the ways in which versions of history function as instruments of power in

the here and now. This political concern is all the more emphatic in those counterfactual fantasies which

partake of the utopian mode. (114)

Unlike postmodernist counterfactual fiction, modernist self-reflexivity is not characterised by

an awareness of the fact that the distinction between fact and fiction is not only an

epistemological problem (see the above quote).

The third difference between modernist self-reflexivity and postmodernist

counterfactual fiction is the following. In modernist self-reflexivity the retrieval of the past

forms a subject of explicit reflection. Postmodernist counterfactual parody is far more implicit in this

respect. Rather than explicitly reflecting upon historiographical constraints, it makes it metahistorical

point by parodically inverting and exaggerating the rhetoric of historical representation. This parody is

far more irreverent toward historiography than modernist self-reflexivity. While modernist writers still

search for a valid representation of the past within the constraints of subjectivity, postmodernist

20 From: André Maurois, If Louis XVI Had Had an Atom of Firmness, trans. Hamish Miles. Squire 1931.(Wesselings reference states: title. Trans. Hamish Miles. Squire 1931. 49-77.)21 That is, the quote from Maurois novel.



26

counterfactual parodies exchange the concern with the possible validity of versions of history for a

sustained inquiry into their functionality. (114)

Postmodernist Self-reflexivity

Elizabeth Wesseling argues that self-reflexivity, which became commonly used by

Modernists, has become an established literary device in historical fiction, and, in that way, is

also a characteristic of postmodernist historical fiction, besides the phenomenon of

counterfactual parody. To put it differently, counterfactual parody is a new element of

postmodernist historical fiction, while self-reflexivity is a continuation of an earlier trend.

Counterfactual parody to Wesseling is the most important addition to the repertoire of the

postmodernist historical novel. Still, as self-reflexivity is continued in the genre, Wesseling

pays attention to that aspect as well. Wesseling divides postmodernist self-reflexivity up into

two kinds of self-reflexivity. The first is characterised by reflecting on Historiography in the

Making (120). It builds upon the version of self-reflexivity introduced by Modernist writers

such as Virginia Woolf and William Faulkner. As in modernist historical fiction, use is made of

explicit reflection on the retrospective retrieval of the past, by way of a historian-like

character, or external narrator, or by multiple focalisation. The other kind of self-reflexivity

Wesseling mentions is new. It not so much reflects on the writings about history, but on the

making of history itself. The making of history is exposed as if it were the writing of a story,

or the imposition of a plot on a plotless reality (Wesseling 120). This type of self-reflexivity

does not merely question the relationship between the res gestae and the narratives about

them, it questions the very existence of the res gestae as an independent level of historical

discourse (Wesseling 120). Next, I will represent Wesseling's further exposition of the two

kinds of postmodernist self-reflexivity she has identified in historical fiction: historiography in

the making and history in the making.



27

Historiography in the Making

A number of features appear in postmodernist historical fiction, through which authors

reflect upon methods of historical research and narration, so as to inquire into the ways in

which the subjective imagination deforms the res gestae. I have numbered them one to five

below.

1. Partiality of historical knowledge

Postmodernist novelists [] expose the partisan nature of historical knowledge. They

expressly draw our attention to the highly self-interested motives which cause their historian-

like characters to set out on a quest for the past (121). This agrees with what philosophers

of literature like Lessing have said about historical knowledge, namely that it is shaped by

emotional needs, such as a need for identity.

Inevitably, historical narratives are of a partisan nature as well. They project the

historian's image into the past. According to Elizabeth Wesseling, the idea that our versions

of the past constitute an incurably partial and preconceived body of knowledge, seems to

have become widely accepted among postmodernist novelists (122).

2. Unreliability of sources

This feature points out that authentication of true material is next to impossible. One way in

which novelists foreground this aspect is by demonstrating the ambiguity of relics from the

past.

3. Selectivity

Selectivity limits our perspectives on the past. There are three causes for this.

A.

[W]e have to make do with whatever relics happen to have survived the wear and tear of



28

time (125).

B.

The second cause is epistemological. As the critical philosophy of history has pointed out, our insights

into the past are determined by the type of questions we put to the source materials [] R.G.

Collingwood has explained the perspectivist nature of historical knowledge by arguing that the historian

aims at the construction of a coherent picture of the past, or a web of imaginative construction, as he

calls it [] Accordingly, the historian only selects as noteworthy those historical data that fit into the

picture which he has in mind. (125-126; italics mine)

C.

Political selectivity: only the individuals and collectivities that made the records, are of

historiographical interest. It is not so much the sufferers of history that historiography is

interested in, but the victors, the politically successful.

4. Narrativity (teleology)

Postmodernist novelists expose the autonomy of narrative conventions. Rather than

representing an order inherent in history, they show teleological continuity to be a sign of

the historical imagination at work, and they foreground the literary features of the narrative

representation of history.

5. Enclaves of authenticity

In some novels, there are still some enclaves of authenticity. These novels contain signs that

point toward the possibility of valid, authentic historical knowledge, such as a certain

hierarchy of more or less trustworthy data, or references to a known, realistic, factual

historical context (e.g. events, individuals).



29

History in the Making

The second type of postmodernist self-reflexivity Wesseling describes, works via shifts from

one level of historical discourse to a lower, more fundamental one (Wesseling 135). The

first level is that of the historian's discourse [which] is shown to reflect the subjective

preoccupations of the historian and his narrative instruments, rather than historical reality

(135). The second level is that of the sources for historiography, which are shown to be

tinged by subjective desires and perhaps even deliberate forgery (135). The third level is

that of the actual historical events. Even these are robbed of their self-evidence by

suggesting that the making of history follows fictional scenarios which, in their turn, have

likewise been determined by linguistic tropes and topoi (135).

Wesseling states that different types of subject matter are addressed by texts that

deal with the issue of history in the making, namely aesthetic history and political history.

Next, she quite elaborately illustrates this by looking at a few novels which represent the

treatment of either of these two kinds of history. I will not reflect more of this here.

Wesseling has presented quite a clear outline of the features of self-reflexivity in the

postmodernist historical novel. In the next two chapters, they will be used in analysing Julian

Barnes' A History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters. Chapter three focuses on self-reflexivity

and chapter four deals with counterfactual and uchronian fiction.



30

Chapter 3

Self-Reflexivity in A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters

Having described what, in Wesselings opinion, the characteristics of postmodernist historical

fiction are, the next aim is to assess if and how these characteristics are reflected in Barnes

A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters. The approach of this chapter will be to take the

characteristics of self-reflexivity and examine if, and how they are reflected in the novel. The

next chapter will do the same with the characteristics of counterfactual and uchronian fiction.

Whereas this chapter and the next one focuses on the examination of Barnes novel and the

findings of this examination, more extensive comments on the results will be provided in

chapter five. Before starting the assessment of the novel, a concise introduction to the novel

is called for.

As the title of A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters suggests, the novel consists of

ten chapters and a half which deal with world history. However, as the combination A

History indicates, it is not about world history as it is generally seen, or at least not a

representation of world history as it is generally seen. The chapters are set in various times

of history, ranging from Noahs Flood up to the twentieth century.22 There are major time

gaps between these periods in history, and the chapters are not placed in chronological

order, as for times in history they describe. Thus, the novel does not offer an all-

encompassing overview of world history, but rather zooms in on a number of events in

specific moments in time. Some of the chapters are clearly based on well-known historical

events, others are based on less known events, or merely have a historical setting, but no

specific event as their basis. Here is a short overview of the chapters:

22 There is also a chapter about heaven in the novel, chapter ten, which is called The Dream. One might beinclined to think that heaven deals with the future, which means the novel actually deals with world historyranging from the Flood to heaven. However, the title of the chapter suggests that it deals with a dream, andbesides that, I do not think heaven is a place in time, but a place outside of time and so I judge it correct to saythat the novel deals with history from the Flood up into the twentieth century.One other difficult case could be Parenthesis which seems to be set in a contemporary time, at least in thetwentieth century, but indications that it takes place later than the twentieth century were not found.



31

1. The Stowaway: a woodworms version of the Flood.

2. The Visitors: the cruise ship Santa Euphemia is hijacked by a Black Thunder group

(Arab terrorists).

3. The Wars of Religion: Set in the sixteenth century. Presents a legal case against

woodworm.

4. The Survivor: At the time of the Cuba Crisis (1962), Kath Ferris sails away from the

destruction of the world.

5. Shipwreck: On the event concerning the shipwreck of the Medusa (1816) and

Gericaults painting of the event (1819).

6. The Mountain: Amanda Ferguson sets out on an expedition to Mount Ararat (1840)

7. Three Simple Stories: -In 1964, a young man comes into contact with a

survivor of the Titanic disaster.

-Narrative of Jonah and other survivors of being eaten

by a big fish, e.g. James Bartley (1981).

-The St. Louis, carrying many Jews on board, is kept

from landing on various shores (1939).

8. Upstream!: Letters written by Charlie, an actor, to his girlfriend. Charlie is part of a film

crew shooting a film in the jungle.

Parenthesis: The half chapter; it focuses mainly on the issue of love.

9. Project Ararat: Spike Tiggler, who has walked on the moon, embarks on a search for

Noahs Ark on Mount Ararat (1970s).

10. The Dream: A dream (it is suggested) about heaven.

To analyse A History of the World is not an easy task. The novel addresses many

issues, many of which are addressed explicitly, and some of them implicitly, and it is quite a



32

complicated task to draw exact boundaries between these issues and say: this element

clearly expresses a concern with the partiality of historical knowledge as part of

historiography in the making, for instance. It is sometimes even hard to distinguish

between counterfactual conjecture and self-reflexivity. Given these circumstances, the

section on self-reflexivity, which follows this paragraph, will be organised as follows. The

features of self-reflexivity will be taken one at a time, and the text searched for expressions

of this particular feature. This will not necessarily mean that the examples from the text fit

Wesselings descriptions of the features exactly. Some may not agree with Wesselings

comments completely, but have enough affiliation with them to be placed under the heading

of a particular feature. In this way, the several features are used as tools to detect signs of

self-reflexivity in the novel.

The novel consists of one, or rather ten and a half chapters, which differ from each

other in many respects, for instance: the periods of history that are described, the types of

text (letters, diary fragments, documents representing old legal procedures, plain narrative

text), style of writing, tone, points of view (first-person or third-person). In a way, one could

say that the novel is not a harmonious whole. Statements that apply to one chapter may not

apply to another, or to the novel as a whole. Therefore, the reviewing of each feature in the

novel will be illustrated with examples from various chapters, in order to come to a

convincing conclusion.

Self-reflexivity: Historiography in the Making

Partiality of historical knowledge

On page 23 of my thesis I presented this feature in the following way:

Postmodernist novelists [] expose the partisan nature of historical knowledge. They expressly draw our

attention to the highly self-interested motives which cause their historian-like characters to set out on a

quest for the past (121). This agrees with what philosophers of literature like Lessing have said about



33

historical knowledge, namely that it is shaped by emotional needs, such as a need for identity.

Inevitably, then, historical narratives are of a partisan nature as well. They project the historian's image

into the past. According to Elizabeth Wesseling, the idea that our versions of the past constitute an

incurably partial and preconceived body of knowledge, seems to have become widely accepted among

postmodernist novelists (122).

The first elements signing an affiliation with the issue of partial historical knowledge can be

found in the first chapter of Barnes novel: "The Stowaway". The narrator of this chapter is a

woodworm who was a stowaway on the Ark during the Flood, and he directly addresses the

reader. Woodworm, as he shall be called in this thesis, presents us with his account of the

Flood, and his perceptions of Noah and his family. It is safe to say that his presentation

differs considerably from the Biblical account and traditional Christian views of it. Woodworm

is very much aware of this fact. He explicitly deals with the issue in his narration, and

stresses the authority of his own version:

Now, I realize that accounts differ. Your species has its much repeated version, which still charms even

sceptics; while the animals have a compendium of sentimental myths. But theyre not going to rock the

boat, are they? Not when theyve been treated as heroes, not when its become a matter of pride that

each and every one of them can proudly trace its family tree straight back to the Ark. They were chosen,

they endured, they survived: its normal for them to gloss over the awkward episodes, to have

convenient lapses of memory. But I am not constrained in that way. I was never chosen. In fact, like

several other species, I was specifically not chosen. I was a stowaway; I too survived; I escaped (getting

off was no easier than getting on); and I have flourished. I am a little set apart from the rest of animal

society, which still has its nostalgic reunions: there is even a Sealegs Club for species which never once

felt queasy. When I recall the Voyage, I feel no sense of obligation; gratitude puts no smear of Vaseline

on the lens. My account you can trust. (4)

In other words: the other animals have their reasons for backing up certain versions, and, as

Woodworm explains later on in the narrative, so do human beings. However, his own

account is supposed to be neutral and trustworthy.



34

It is interesting to examine if Woodworm indeed comes across as a neutral source of

information. Woodworm states his position as one who was not chosen, a stowaway, a

survivor, one who escaped and flourished, one who is not obliged to anyone, and,

because of his position, a neutral source. However, the weakness of the above quoted

statements on other animals is, that they boomerang back on him. It is questionable that the

status of being specifically not chosen did not have any effect on his version, just as the

position of those who were chosen affected their versions of what happened. Besides this,

Woodworms narration shows a number of instances where it is obvious that he views things

from a different point of view than human beings do. For instance, he portrays animals as

thinking, rational beings, and mentions an instance of animals offering up a petition to Noah

(Barnes, 14).

Woodworm seems to perceive things from an animal point of view, or at least, from a

woodworms point of view. The effect of this can be that the version of history he presents is

put somewhat in perspective. Woodworms identity (that of a woodworm) does play some

role in his perception of events. When he states that Noah was bad-tempered, smelly,

unreliable, envious and cowardly (16), this may come as a shock to those who hold to

traditional Christian views. However, when one page later they read that Woodworm looks

down on Noahs outward appearance, for instance, because he cannot grow his own hair

except around his face, they see how subjective Woodworms views can be. However, the

fact that his account is likely to contain bias, or restrictions because of a woodworms point

of view, is not a solid ground for rejecting all of its contents.

Despite some cracks in Woodworms authority as a neutral source of information, part

of his criticism does make a point. This will now be illustrated with the use of two quotes.

The first quote is on pages 4 and 5:

the waters were upon the earth for a hundred and fifty days? Bump that up to about four years [] Your

species has always been hopeless about dates. I put it down to your quaint obsession with multiples of



35

seven.

Probably a statement like this will not convince many true-blue adherents of the Christian

faith of the alternative dates Woodworm brings forward. However, it is true that certain

numbers play an important role in the Bible, and the above quote may cause some to

wonder about the influence that important numbers may have had on the writing of history.

Another passage states:

Some of those scholars who devote their lives to your sacred texts have even tried to prove that the

Noah of the Ark wasnt the same man as the Noah arraigned for drunkenness. (29)

Woodworm mentions this in trying to illustrate the way in which humans attempt to deal

with the problems that some historical facts produce for them. Historical data can cause an

inner conflict when they clash with a persons personal beliefs, and this, as is shown in the

example Woodworm relates, can lead to a forced treatment of the data involved. The

example in the above quote is an extreme case of this forced treatment.

Another chapter that draws attention to the partiality of historical knowledge is

chapter five, Shipwreck. This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section

describes the events concerning the shipwreck of the Medusa in 1816, and the second

section focuses on Gericaults painting of the shipwreck, the process of painting that was

involved as well as the final outcome of this process. The first part of chapter five relates

how the Medusa set sail on the 17th of June 1816, as part of an expedition for Senegal

[which] consisted of four vessels (115). The text relates the journey from its departure to

its shipwrecking, up until the moment fifteen survivors are picked up from a raft, about two

and a half weeks later, and adds some information on what happened to a few other victims

of the Medusa tragedy. The period of time between the shipwrecking and the rescue is

related in most detail. It is the manner in which the events are described which is interesting



36

in this section on partial historical knowledge. On the one hand, it seems the text is an

impartial description of the things that happened. Except for the opening and ending

passages, it is a chronological account which mentions much data. However, there are small

signs that the speaker is not completely neutral. For instance, when the narrator of chapter

five, part I, relates one of the mutinies that took place on the raft, he ends his description

with: By the time the villains were subdued, the raft was laden with corpses (118). The

label of villains seems somewhat partisan. It reoccurs shortly after this: taking the villain

by the hair . and this villain is also called a treacherous underling (119).

Unreliability of Sources

The second feature to be examined is that of the unreliability of sources. This feature points

to the difficulty of authenticating true material, for instance by demonstrating the ambiguity

of relics from the past. The issue of unreliable sources is addressed directly and indirectly in

Barnes novel. Chapter three deals with the authenticity of a historical document. The text of

this chapter represents the proceedings of a legal case against woodworms, held in the

sixteenth century. The woodworms are charged for having eaten the woodwork of a church

in Mamirolle, including the roof, and the throne of the Bishop of Besançon. When the Bishop

had sat down in his throne, it collapsed and the bishop had become mentally handicapped as

a result. The presented proceedings of the case are preceded by an introduction which

brings the aspect of authenticity to the attention of the reader. The source of the text is

mentioned: the Archives Municipales de Besançon (p. 61), and the author of the

introduction underlines the interest the case could have for legal historians. Next, it is stated

that the following documents [] do not represent the entire proceedings. Parts of the

proceedings have been left out, as it was assumed that references to these proceedings in

the actual presented document would suffice. The speaker of the introduction claims:

nothing [is] absent from the essential structure and argument of the case. The reader is



37

supposed to trust the competence of the person(s) who decided what would be included in

the documents. Next, the Translators note reveals that the manuscript was written in one

and the same hand, which means we are not dealing with the original submissions as

penned by each lawyers clerk, but with the work of a third party who may have omitted

sections of the pleas. So, the manuscript is a representation of a representation of a case,

and it is claimed once, and suggested another time that the contents have been edited. At

the end of the introduction the translator states: I have done my best to render the

sometimes extravagant style of pleading especially of the unnamed procureur des habitans

into a comparable English (62). So, on top of the document coming from a third hand, it

is a translated text, and not an easy one to have to render into comparable English,

because of the particular style of pleading presented in the source language. In conclusion it

can be said that the introduction to the case, including the translators note points out that

a number of the texts aspects are likely to have influenced its authenticity, that is, its

authenticity as a trustworthy reflection of the case as it took place in 1520.

The ambiguity of relics surfaces in two chapters. In chapter six, Amanda Fergusson

sets out on a journey to mount Ararat to intercede for her fathers soul. Miss Logan is her

companion for the expedition. On their journey they meet an Armenian priest who claims no

one has ever ascended the mountain they want to climb. Later on in their conversation, he

offers them a black amulet, which he claims to be a piece of bitumen from Noahs Ark.

Amanda rejects the offer, explaining they are not likely to believe the amulet to be authentic

if the mountain is impossible to climb. The priest maintains that the piece of bitumen could

have come down from the mountain in a miraculous way, or by a bird. The episode on the

amulet ends with the ladies and the priest parting without a bargain being struck (155). No

decisive answer is given about the question of the authenticity of the amulet. It has to be

stressed, that the episode described only takes up a paragraph in a twenty-five page chapter

and does not play a role in the rest of the narrative.



38

Elements that can be related to issues of authenticity and of reliability of sources also

occur in chapter seven: Three Simple Stories (141). The chapter contains three parts. The

first part relates the story of a young man who teaches for one term at a crammer. During

this time he becomes acquainted with Lawrence Beesley, who founded the school and, now

in his mid-eighties, still lives on the premises of the school. Beesley is a well-known survivor

of the Titanic disaster. The data that could confirm this fact, however, are endowed with

some ambiguity. Beesley still keeps a blanket embroidered with the name of the ship that

picked him up after the disaster. However, some of Beesleys family members think the

embroidering dates from some time after the rescue. These family members are labelled

sceptical (173), and no solid ground is given for their claim. Still, the fact remains that the

issue concerning the blankets authenticity is raised explicitly.

A final example of ambiguous relics can be found in chapter nine: Project Ararat.

Chapter nine is about Spike Tiggler. As an astronaut, he has walked on the moon, and it was

right there that he experienced Gods voice telling him to go and find the Ark on the Ararat in

Turkey. Some time after his return, Spike starts to take this calling more seriously. After a

period of publicity and raising money, he sets out on an expedition to the Ararat, together

with Dr Jimmy Fulgood, college basketball star turned geologist and scuba-diver (267). At

a certain moment they indeed find something: a human skeleton. Spike is convinced they

have found Noahs remains, which are miraculously well-preserved. However, when part of

the skeleton is researched, it turns out it belongs to a woman and is about one hundred and

fifty years old.23 Spike had been so ready to believe in miracles, that he had assumed the

bones were Noahs. If it was not for up-to-date research methods, the opposite could not

have been proved.

23 This seems to be a reference to chapter six, where Amanda dies on the Ararat .



39

Selectivity

The third feature to be discussed is selectivity. Wesseling has described three issues related

to selectivity that obstruct our perspectives on the past, which were mentioned before in the

second chapter of this thesis. I will briefly introduce them again and present reflections of

these particular issues in the text.

The first issue related to selectivity points out that selectivity is caused by the fact

that historians simply have to work with whatever relics survived history. This issue does not

seem to play a major role in Barnes novel. Examples are not evident in the text. One

passage that might be related to the kind of selectivity discussed here, is the introduction to

chapter three, The Wars of Religion. This passage brings forward a translator who has to

make do with the manuscript that describes the legal case. Some information can be

gathered from the handwriting the manuscript was written in, and from the Archives

Municipales de Besançon, but besides this, the translator can only guess about the

omissions and changes that have taken place, and the manuscript is what he or she has to

work with. Besides this passage, no other examples stand out from the text.

The second aspect of selectivity points out that a person who searches for the past

aims at a certain picture. In Wesselings words: As the critical philosophy of history has

pointed out, our insights into the past are determined by the types of questions we put to

the source materials (Wesseling 126). Further on she states: the historian only selects as

noteworthy those historical data that fit into the picture which he has in mind (126). So, the

historian is aiming at a coherent picture of the past and this makes him or her selective

towards historical data. An passage from chapter two, The Visitors corresponds with this

feature. This chapter relates the hijacking of the cruise ship Santa Euphemia. Franklin

Hughes, known as a television presenter, stays on board the ship as a guest lecturer. He is

appointed spokesperson for the passengers (by the terrorists). When the leader of the

hijackers tells Franklin about the procedure that will follow (namely: killing two passengers



40

every hour) if their demands are not met, Franklin suggests that it would be better to have

things explained to the passengers. The next day, Franklin is told that his suggestion has

been taken into consideration, and he is forced to take on himself the task of explaining to

the passengers what is happening. How they are mixed up in history. What that history is

(51). Franklin receives precise instructions for this, and he is to explain things exactly in

terms of these instructions. On page 55, part of Franklins speech is reflected as follows:

Hughes sketched an idyllic nineteenth century, all nomads and goat-farming and traditional hospitality

[] He talked of early Zionist settlers and Western concepts of land-ownership. The Balfour Declaration.

Jewish immigration from Europe. The Second World War. European guilt over the Holocaust being paid

for by the Arabs [] Their [Jews] militarism, expansionism, racism. Their pre-emptive attack on the

Egyptian air force at the start of the Six Day War being the exact moral equivalent of Pearl Harbour []

The refugee camps. The theft of land. The artificial support of the Israeli economy by the dollar. The

atrocities committed against the dispossessed. The Jewish lobby in America. The Arabs only asking from

the Western Powers for the same justices in the Middle East as had already been accorded to the Jews.

The regrettable necessity of violence, a lesson taught the Arabs by the Jews, just as it had been taught

the Jews by the Nazis. (55-56)

What is striking about this fragment of history, is that it is very one-sided. It focuses mainly

on the crimes committed by Jews and those who supported them, and the suffering of the

other party. This episode not only conveys subjectivity, but is also selective. It focuses on

violent or criminal actions of the Jewish side, and leaves out the violence and crimes that

came from their enemies. Franklins speech aimed at a coherent representation of history,

and only the data that fitted this representation were selected. Other straightforward

connections to the second type of selectivity were not found in the novel.

The third selectivity-related issue to be discussed is that of political selectivity. It

focuses on the phenomenon that, in Wesselings words, historiography can only concern

itself with those individuals and collectivities who have made the historical record

(Wesseling 126). According to Lessing, Wesseling states, political success is what is needed



41

to leave a mark on the records. Wesseling remarks on a quote from Lessing on this subject

that historiography tends to write the history of the victors, while those who suffered,

rather than made history are quickly erased from our historical memory (126).

A concern with political selectivity is not so easy to detect in the novel. Still, here is

one example from chapter four, which could be an expression of an affiliation with the issue

of political selectivity. In chapter four, Kath Ferris displays a concern for reindeer. This has

started in her childhood and continues when she grows up. At a certain point in the

narrative, mention is made of a nuclear disaster in Russia, and the consequences it had for

the reindeer that had become radioactive as a consequence. A significant passage on this:

At first the plan was to bury the reindeer six feet down. It wasnt much of a news story, just

an inch or two on the foreign page (85). However, even though it wasnt much of a news

story, to Kath it is a major issue. She is also upset about what happens to the meat of these

reindeer, and about the fact that later on it is decided the meat will be fed to the mink. The

people around Kath do not understand her concern with these issues, and when it is

described that she is upset about feeding the meat to the mink, the text says: Most people

had stopped paying attention to what she was telling them by now (86). In this text,

radioactive reindeer in Russia apparently are a minor news item to most people, but a major

issue to Kath. This could be related to the issue of political selectivity in that it shows

someone with a concern for those who are forgotten by others, and who are not an

important news item. No other examples could be distinguished in the novel. One doubtful

case is the following, another aspect of chapter four. While the story of this chapter takes

place in the Cold War, it does not focus on the war, but on Kath. She is unimportant to the

political scene, but Barnes choice for a subject in a chapter that (except for descriptions of

Kaths earlier life) is set against the background of the Cold War. Maybe this could be seen

as an expression of Barnes concern to focus on one who does not occupy the centre of the



42

political or historical scene. However, the example is not very clearly related to the issue of

political selectivity.

Narrativity

The fourth aspect of historiography in the making is that of narrativity. As was mentioned in

chapter two of this thesis, this aspect focuses on teleology as a sign of the historical

imagination at work, and on the literary features of the narrative representation of history

(see page 24). One example is the novel as a whole. It is striking that certain themes or

items keep occurring in the novel. For instance, the Ark or other boats occur several times:

the Santa Euphemia in chapter two, Kath Ferris boat in chapter four, the Medusa in chapter

five and so on. Besides this there are other reoccurring things. The most striking

phenomenon is that of woodworm, which occurs in at least seven chapters. And, whereas

the reoccurrence of boats in historical narratives is somewhat incredible, that of woodworm

seems completely fabricated. Of course, in chapter one it is part of the narrative set-up. And

in The Wars of Religion it is the subject of the chapter. Still, woodworm also occur in

narratives in a very artificial way. For instance in chapter five, which is all about the wrecking

of the Medusa, life on the raft, and Gericaults painting of the event. Then, in the last

sentence of the chapter, woodworms pop up, when it is remarked on Gericaults painting:

And no doubt if they examine the frame they will discover woodworm living there (139).

Another example is the theme of separating the clean and unclean. It occurs in four

chapters. In chapter one, on the Flood, it is not strange. However, it is also applied to the

splitting up of passengers of the Santa Euphemia, according to their nationalities, in chapter

two, and the throwing overboard of the ill from the raft of the Medusa, in chapter five. In

chapter seven, part three, the St Louis is not allowed to let its passengers, for the most part

Jews, disembark in Havana. When it is suggested that a number of them can disembark in



43

return for those who were supposed to go on board in that harbour, this is also compared to

separating the clean from the unclean (184).

Naturally, it can be argued that the reoccurrence of the above-mentioned elements

has to do with the fact that Barnes was aiming at some kind of thematic goal. To

counterbalance this argument some more examples will be given of other reoccurrences. For

instance, the case of bitumen, a certain kind of substance that was used in the construction

of the Ark, but also by Gericault in his painting. Bitumen occurs in three chapters. First in

chapter five, on Gericaults painting, where it is mentioned Gericault used it to make the

shadow as black as possible (139), and then in chapter six, where Amanda Fergusson is

offered a piece of bitumen which had supposedly been part of the Ark, and Amandas

companion wonders: was that not the material used by artists to blacken the shadows in

their paintings? (155). Finally, it reoccurs in chapter nine, which relates Spike Tigglers

search for the Ark: Jimmy [Spikes companion] was uncertain whether they were due to find

the whole Ark [] or just some significant remnant: the rudder, perhaps, or some planks still

caulked with bitumen (273).

Besides the example of bitumen, there are a number of things that occur in two

chapters, and in that way seem to connect these two chapters. For instance, in chapter four

one of Kaths cats is named Linda, and in chapter eight another Linda occurs. In chapter

one, Woodworm relates about the reindeer aboard the Ark: the reindeer were troubled with

something [] long-term. [] the reindeer sensed something. And it was something beyond

what we then knew. As if they were saying, You think this is the worst? Dont count on it.

Still, whatever it as, even the reindeer couldnt be specific about it. Something distant, major

long-term (13). This passage is an obvious reference to chapter four, where reindeer

become victims of a nuclear disaster. A third example is that in chapter one, Woodworm

relates that, in contrast to what supposedly really happened, Noah claimed that the dove

was the bird that found the olive branch after the flood, and points to the fact that the dove



44

has received some kind of symbolical status by human beings. In chapter five, the men that

are left on the raft are visited by a white butterfly: To some [] it seemed that even this

could make a morsel. [] To yet others, this simple butterfly was a sign, a messenger from

Heaven as white as Noahs dove (121).

Even if Barnes was thinking about thematics when working repetition into his novel,

the effect of it is that the novel comes across as a construction. In a number of cases, the

repetition is so obvious that, whether intended or not, attention is drawn to the artificiality of

the unity that is found in the novel. The main question is, naturally, whether Barnes intended

to draw attention to this artificial unity. Maybe this was not his concern at all. Maybe he was

aiming at dealing with certain thematics and was not concerned with self-reflexive notions at

all. One passage from Parenthesis can give a clue about this question. Parenthesis is the

part of the novel where Barnes reveals something of what he himself thinks of matters. This

is shown in one of Barnes answers in an interview with Vanessa Guignery:

I suppose the point at which Parenthesis comes is the point at which Ive given a series of alternative

narrations, dislocated in time and place, and it seems to me as a writer, at that point, that it is time to

say something on my own part, on my own behalf. And at such a point, the reader would be quite

justified in saying to the writer Well, what do you think about it?.24

Parenthesis contains a passage which could be helpful in assessing whether the recurrent

items in the novel are merely there for thematic purposes, or if some self-reflexive concern

might be involved here:

The history of the world? Just voices echoing in the dark; images that burn for a few centuries and then

fade; stories, old stories that sometimes seem to overlap; strange links, impertinent connections. We lie

here in our hospital bed of the present (what nice clean sheets we get nowadays) with a bubble of daily

news drip-fed into our arm. We think we know who we are, though we dont quite know why were here,

24 Vanessa Guignery, History in question(s): An interview with Julian Barnes, Sources 8, (Orleans: Université

d¶Orleans ± Editions Paradigme 2000), 65.



45

or how long we shall be forced to stay. And while we fret and writhe in bandaged uncertainty are we a

voluntary patient? we fabulate. We make up a story to cover the facts we dont know or cant accept;

we keep a few true facts and spin a new story round them. Our panic and pain are only eased by

soothing fabulation; we call it history. (242; italics mine)

The words old stories that sometimes seem to overlap, strange links, impertinent

connections seem to describe some of what has been dealt with in this section on

narrativity. As is the case with other fragments from Parenthesis, the quoted passage

seems to refer to the novel it is placed in.25 This means that when Barnes is inserting

strange links, for instance, in the other ten chapters, he is not just aiming at thematics, or

not aiming at thematics as a goal in itself. He is trying to say something about how he views

history or historiography. For this reason I consider it plausible that at least part of the links

between the various chapters are connected to the aspect of narrativity.

Enclaves of authenticity

The fifth element of historiography in the making that will be examined is that of enclaves

of authenticity, or, in other words, signs that point toward the possibility of valid, authentic

historical knowledge. Examples of this are: a certain hierarchy of more or less trustworthy

data, or references to a known, realistic, factual historical context.26 Authenticity is hard to

find in the novel. The narratives rather focus on the many elements that stand in the way of

objective knowledge than giving hope that such knowledge exists. However, two minor

fragments might give room for authenticity.

In chapter nine, Project Ararat, Spike Tiggler and his companion find human bones.

Spike is convinced they have found Noahs remains. However, scientific research proves that

the bones belong to a woman who has died about a hundred and fifty years before. Besides

showing how unreliable human perception of evidence can be, this episode provides some

25 Other examples will be dealt with in chapter five of this thesis.26 The quotes are taken from the description of enclaves of authenticity in chapter two of this thesis. See page24.



46

sort of grip in the form of science. Science, however, is not only put in a positive light in this

novel, for instance, in chapter seven, part two. Here it is described that James Bartley got

swallowed by a whale in 1891, was freed by fishermen the next day, and survived the

incident. According to science, it would have been impossible for him to have survived more

than a few minutes in the whales belly (180), but still, it happened. Here, science is

rebuffed by reality.

The question is what the status of science then is, in the novel. In the fragment from

chapter nine, it gives more security than mere human perception and insight do. In chapter

seven, science is overruled. The answer could be that no absolute statements can be made

on what medium has an absolute authority in the field of objective knowledge. Sometimes,

science can be more objective about reality than humans can be. At other times, human

experience can be more of an authority than science. One passage from Parenthesis

renders further insight into the novels attitude towards authentic knowledge.

We all know objective truth is not obtainable, that when some event occurs we shall have a multiplicity

of subjective truths which we assess and then fabulate into history [] some [] version of what

really happened. This [] version is a fake a charming, impossible fake [] But while we know this,

we must still believe that objective truth is obtainable; or if we cant believe this we must believe that 43

per cent objective truth is better than 41 per cent. We must do so, because if we dont were lost, we fall

into beguiling relativity. (245-246; italics mine)

This passage is clear about the existence of objective truth: it is not obtainable. Still, people

should believe in it, for more practical purposes. Maybe the ambiguity of this statement

explains some of the ambiguity in the fragments that were mentioned above. Authenticity is

denied, most of the time, but some room is left for alternatives. In chapter four more will be

said about the content of the above quote from pages 245 and 246, on the alternative to

objective truth that Barnes puts forward.



47

Self-reflexivity: History in the Making

The second type of self-reflexivity that will be discussed in this chapter is that which

Elisabeth Wesseling has labelled as history in the making. What is difficult about searching

the novel for this kind of self-reflexivity, is that it is quite close to that of historiography in

the making. The aims of the two kinds of self-reflexivity are clearly separated: the first kind

of self-reflexivity, discussed above, reflects on the constraints upon historiography, and the

second kind of self-reflexivity, to be discussed in the following, reflects on history itself. Still,

in examining Barnes novel it is sometimes hard to distinguish between the two. For

instance, the aspect of narrativity focuses on the structure historians impose on history,

and this is very similar to history in the making, which, one could say, focuses on the

fictionality of history itself. To cut it very short: history in the making doubts even the basic

skeleton of history, historical events, by suggesting that historical events are made to

happen in compliance with the same narrative conventions as those that determine the

retrospective retrieval of the past. History as an objective existence is doubted.

In chapter six, The Mountain, the issue of history as something that is made is

brought up. To explain this, it is useful to illustrate Amanda Fergussons way of looking at

the world. Amanda is presented as a woman who believes in divine intent and Gods plan.

See for instance page 147: his [her fathers] refusal to acknowledge the divine plan, and:

How could her father have failed to recognize God, His eternal design, and its essential

goodness? The proof of this plan and this benevolence lay manifest in Nature, and on page

148: Amanda discovered in the world divine intent, benevolent order and rigorous justice.

Amanda sees Gods purposes, plans and so on, in various things, but this is rather subjective

a number of times. It is impressive to see what kind of consequences this has for her life. It

is quite harmless to see divine intent in the way all kinds of fruit are fit for human

consumption (see pages 147 and 148), but having to go on some kind of pilgrimage to



48

intercede for her fathers soul, because she believes it to be appropriate (149) is a different

matter. Somehow Amanda has become convinced that the way to save her father is to fetch

grape juice from the vines in Arghuri,27 and when this mission turns out to be a

disappointment, because the monks in Arghuri have made wine from the grapes (which

tradition had forbidden, according to Amanda), she is convinced that getting snow from

the Ararat will do the job:

We shall ascend the mountain. Sin must be purged with water. The sin of the world was purged by the

waters of the flood [] We shall fill our bottles with snow from the holy mountain. The pure juice of

Noahs vine we came in search of has been rendered impure. We shall bring back purging water instead.

That is the only way to salvage the journey. (160; italics mine)

Passages like the one quoted above make one wonder about the subjective nature of

Amandas perceptions of what is appropriate or what needs to be done to intercede for her

fathers soul. This becomes even more manifest in the last section of chapter six, where the

issue of history in the making seems to come in. After Amanda and her companion have

retrieved the water from Mount Ararat, and they are on their way back down the mountain,

Amanda slips and falls. She hurts her foot, and becomes weak. It is insinuated later on that

Amanda had fallen on purpose. Miss Logan reflects on pages 167 and 168:

They had been crossing a scree; there had been many loose stones, and footing was difficult, but surely

at that point they had been traversing a gentler slope, and her employer had actually been standing on a

flattish stretch of granite when she had fallen. It was a magnetic mountain where a compass did not

work, and it was easy to lose your bearing. No, that was not it. The question she was avoiding was

whether Miss Fergusson might not have been the instrument of her own precipitation, in order to

achieve or confirm whatever it was she wanted to achieve or confirm.

27 The place where Noah supposedly returned to his agricultural labours after the Flood, and where an ancient vine stock planted by the Patriarchs own hand was still present.



49

When Amanda is still weak another day later, she tells her companion that she and their

Kurdish guide are to leave her the next day: Whether you return or not is immaterial. []

I shall remember the Holy Scripture and wait for Gods will. On this mountain Gods will is

quite manifest. I cannot imagine a happier place from which to be taken unto Him (165).

Accordingly, Miss Logan and the guide go down the mountain, and when the guide has

safely brought Miss Logan to a village, he disappears and does not return. Weeks later,

when Miss Logan is on her way home (Amanda has obviously stayed behind upon the

mountain, to die there), she considers that it is possible the Kurd had been instructed by

Amanda to leave her after bringing her down the mountain safely. He had, during their

journey, always executed Miss Fergussons commands with punctiliousness and honour

(167), and had spoken to Amanda in private, the last night they were with her. It is never

confirmed whether Amanda fell on purpose or not, or whether she instructed the guide to

leave Miss Logan or not. Still, indirectly chapter six seems to concern itself with the issue of

Amanda directing her own life.

In chapter six it is fascinating to see what consequences deep conviction can have for

someones life. It can even lead to death. It is also fascinating that in this chapter, a woman

who believes in the divine plan, seems to direct her own life. It is even suggested she set up

her own death. The question is of course, whether this chapter is about what it can do to a

person when he or she has certain strong beliefs or becomes lost in his or her subjective

perceptions, or if it is about the opposition between a stable, independent reality and

creating your own reality. It may be too absolute an assertion to claim the last option. The

chapter seems to focus on matters of perception and not so much on the relation between a

stable and a fictional reality, but still, at least in the last section of chapter six, it seems there

is room for the question whether or not Amanda was directing her own lifes end. Another

question is, if this issue of directing your own life is present, whether this relates to history in



50

the making. However, since it does concern part of the course of Amandas life, I thought it

appropriate to include it in this section.



51

Chapter 4

Counterfactual Conjecture and Uchronian Fiction in

A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters

Having paid considerable attention to the self-reflexive aspect of A History of the World in 10

½ Chapters, the next step is to assess whether the novel reflects something like Uchronian

Fiction. First, as not all Counterfactual Fiction is Uchronian, the counterfactual quality of

Barnes book will be examined as a separate issue.

Counterfactual Conjecture

In her book Writing History as a Prophet Elisabeth Wesseling defines counterfactual

historical fiction as fiction which deliberately departs from canonized history (Wesseling

102). She explains that the development of an alternative history may be quite a rational

and responsible intellectual endeavor (104), and that Counterfactual conjectures are

developed by way of a logical thought experiment, which attempts to answer the question

What would have happened if . . ., using a hypothetico-deductive mode of reasoning

(102). She ascribes a parodic aspect to counterfactual fantasies, 28 in the sense that parodic

texts incorporate their target texts. Some knowledge of the parodied text is indispensable

for the recognition of its pendant within the new context of the parodic text. Wesseling

adds: Evidently, the target of counterfactual conjecture is the reservoir of established

historical facts and popular interpretations of those facts which makes up canonized history

(105). Parodic texts, as Wesseling calls them (105),

recycle prefabricated textual materials, but with an ironic difference. The parodied text is not merely

repeated, however, but modified by various strategies. An author may change the target by

28 As a reminder: the terms counterfactual fiction, counterfactual conjecture and counterfactual fantasy point tothe same phenomenon, in keeping with Wesselings use of the terms.



52

exaggerating some of its features as in a caricature, by turning it upside down, or by inserting it into a

strikingly new context which exposes the target in a different light. (105, 106)

Another thing Wesseling points out is that counterfactual conjecture, despite its parodic

aspect, does not necessarily degrade history (106).

Barnes novel will now be searched for aspects of counterfactual conjecture as they

are described above. All chapters will be reviewed separately. In this section I will merely

examine what counterfactual elements can be found in the novel, but the possible causes for

those particular elements will not be discussed. In practice, counterfactual fiction is not easy

to discern. It is hard to draw the line between adjustments for fictions sake, for instance,

and counterfactual changes. Therefore, to draw this line, the afore-mentioned elements will

be used as tools: deliberately departing from canonized history, developing a narrative from

the question: what would have happened if. And also: parody of canonized history, and

modification of the parodied text by various methods, such as exaggeration, turning the

text upside down, or inserting it into a strikingly new context.

Chapter one contains a narrative that seems quite counterfactual at first sight.

Woodworms descriptions of Noah and of the events concerning the Flood seem to defy what

traditional views have held for ages. In Woodworms description the selection process before

entering the Ark was harsh, the voyage on the Ark was one of hardships, and Noah is

portrayed as a hysterical rogue with a drink problem (8). However, Woodworm also claims

that his view of Noah and the traditional view are not necessarily in contradiction, but can

coexist, for instance, if it is considered that Noah was a good exemplar of his kind at the

time. Some of Woodworms claims could be fitted into the Biblical narrative without much

difficulty, even though they disrupt the traditional interpretation of that narrative. Still a few

negations of Biblical facts can be found. For instance on pages 4 and 5, Woodworm changes

some numbers: it supposedly rained for about a year and a half instead of forty days and

nights, and the waters were upon the earth for a hundred and fifty days? Bump that up to



53

about four years. On page 6 the role of the serpent in the Fall (Genesis 3) is denied. Later

on in chapter one, Woodworm claims that it was not the dove, but the raven who found the

first olive branch (and that Noah has tampered with the facts). But stating that chapter one

is counterfactual on the basis of these changes in data, does not seem a solid claim to stake.

Apart from changes in data as mentioned here, the basic framework of the Biblical story

remains intact: Noah built the Ark, animals are taken into the Ark, it rains for a period, the

waters subside, a bird finds life on the earth, everyone leaves the Ark, there is a rainbow as

a sign that another Flood will never happen. Thus, in a way, the basic framework of facts is

left intact. Still, despite stressing at times that his view and the traditional view can coexist,

Woodworm presents his narrative with an attitude of: you all look at it this way, but it was

really different. And Woodworms filling in of gaps, giving a twist to certain information,

adding facts, this does seem to have a counterfactual effect, as it completely disrupts the

traditional views on the Biblical facts. As mentioned above, Wesseling includes popular

interpretations of those [established historical] facts in her definition of canonized history.

In this text, popular interpretation of the Genesis narrative is disrupted. For this reason,

chapter one could be labelled counterfactual.

Chapter two, The Visitors, is inspired by a hijack that occurred in 1985. In October

of that year, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was hijacked by Four heavily armed

Palestinian terrorists.29 Hijacking a cruise ship was a new tactic at the time. There are a

number of differences between the historical event and Barnes narrative. For instance, the

hijack in Barnes novel seems to be a preconceived action, while information tells us that the

hijack of the Achille Lauro was actually unplanned. The Palestinians on board were travelling

to Ashdod, but their arms were discovered, and in a state of panic and confusion, they

hijacked the ship, or so a faction of the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) claimed it to be. 30

29 See www.specialoperations.com/Images_Folder/library2/achill.html.30 See www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a731701.



54

Another difference is, that in the historical event, only one passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, was

killed. In Barnes story, more than ten passengers are killed. The hijack is then ended by

American Special Forces (Barnes, 58), while six more passengers are killed in the battle.

Five of the eight terrorists are killed as well. In the case of the Achille Lauro, the hijackers

were to be flown to a safe haven in an Egyptian aircraft, but they were forced down in Italy

by the Americans, and the Italian authorities took them into custody. The hijackers were put

on trial and convicted to prison sentences. This last difference between the two versions is

interesting. It relates to the cause of the hijack in Barnes novel. Whereas the Achille Lauro

hijackers demanded the release of fifty Palestinians from Israeli prison, the hijackers of the

Santa Euphemia demand the release of three of their members from European prisons.

Franklin says in his final speech: You may remember [] that two years ago a civilian

aircraft carrying three members of the Black Thunder group was forced down by the

American air force in Sicily, that the Italian authorities in contravention of international law

compounded this act of piracy by arresting the three freedom fighters, that Britain defended

Americas action at the United Nations, and that the three men are now in prison in France

and Germany (56). Thus, even though Barnes narrative is based on the Achille Lauro

hijacking, on the other hand it seems to be a new hijacking, and the authorities dealing with

the Achille Lauro hijack seems to be its cause.

The issue here is to assess whether the differences between the historical event and

Barnes account are of a counterfactual nature. First of all, chapter two is obviously a

fictional story. During my research on the Achille Lauro event, no information was found that

could indicate that a story like Franklin Hughes has actually occurred. Only the

circumstances were based on reality. This reality differs considerably from the circumstances

on the Santa Euphemia. A difference in the number of casualties and a difference between

an unpremeditated hijack and one that looks like it had been planned, may not convince

some that chapter two is counterfactual. The anachronism of making the ending of the



55

Achille Lauro hijack the cause of the Santa Euphemia hijack remains as a possible

counterfactual element. What could help determine whether it is counterfactual or not, is to

see if this is a case of parody. For an author to effect parody, the reader must be aware of

the original history behind the fictional story, so for Barnes to attain parody, he must have

had to estimate his readers knowledge of the historical event involved. It is difficult for a

researcher today to establish Barnes estimation of his reading public. It may very well be

that not many of them remembered exactly what the cause of the Achille Lauro hijack was,

or how it was ended, so parody would not have worked with them. Besides this, chapter two

seems to focus mainly on Franklin Hughes, a fictional character. A first conclusion could then

be that chapter two is mainly a fictional story based on a historical event, in which Barnes

does play with chronology and brings in a possibly counterfactual element.

In the interview with Vanessa Guignery, Barnes says some things that can be helpful

in assessing the chapters counterfactuality. In the previously quoted excerpt from the

interview, Barnes states:



say something on my own part, on my own behalf. (Guignery 65; italics mine)

The term alternative narrations is important here. It indicates that there is something

alternative about the narratives in A History (or, at least the ones before Parenthesis).

Barnes does not speak about alternative history, or counterfactuality, and basing absolute

claims upon a specific wording of things in an interview may not always lead to a solid

statement. Still, Barnes statement indicates that he does not regard these chapters as mere

fictional adaptations of historical events or people. As for chapter two this means that the

story is an alternative, in one way or another, to canonised history. The story is obviously

parallel to the historical event, but on the other hand it differs from it in a number of ways



56

(the location, the name of the terrorist group, the actions taken by the terrorists), which

makes it seem quite remote from the historical event. The questions remain: is chapter two

a fictional adaptation of a historical event, so is it based on that historical event, or is it

merely inspired by the event, and is the story in itself meant to be an entirely different story

than the historical one. I think these are hard questions to answer at this point. Anyhow, it is

difficult to prove that Barnes was aiming at a counterfactual narrative, instead of a new story

inspired by history. Chapter five of this thesis, which reviews the results found in this chapter

and the previous one, will deal further with the counterfactuality of chapter two.

Chapter three is based on legal procedures and actual cases described in The

Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals by E.P. Evans (1906). This is stated

in an Authors Note which can be found in the back of the novel, after chapter ten. The

reference, to be clear, is to an existing work. According to the Authors Note, it seems

Barnes was not focussing on one particular case, but drawing his inspiration from various

cases. For this reason, counterfactuality does not seem like a relevant issue here.

In chapter four, The Survivor, the story does not clearly represent a particular

historical event. The narrative is fictional, except for its historical background. Whereas I

have stated before that this background is the Cuba Crisis, a closer look reveals that it is

never explicitly mentioned that this is the crisis referred to. It is clear that the crisis almost

leads to a war, and that it can lead to a nuclear disaster; and because of a reference to

tensions between the United States and Russia before the crisis, one is easily led to conclude

that the reference here is to the Cuba Crisis, as part of the Cold War. One peculiar thing,

however, is that during Kaths earlier life a nuclear disaster took place in Russia, which

caused the reindeer to become contaminated. Historically speaking, nuclear disasters did

occur in Russia before the Cuba Crisis, but the element of contaminated reindeer is

particularly related to the Chernobyl disaster, which occurred much later than the Cuba

crisis. The question then is whether a twist in chronology is implied, or if the crisis referred



57

to is not supposed to mean the Cuba Crisis at all. If the latter option is true, counterfactuality

does not seem like a relevant issue anymore. If the first option is true, the question is if the

anachronism in that setting (the Chernobyl disaster happening before the Cuba Crisis) means

that the narrative is counterfactual. It is for certain that the anachronism, if that is what it is,

is made recognisable for the reader. The nuclear disaster is specifically related to the

Chernobyl disaster,31 and the crisis that almost leads to a war is related to the United States

and Russia, and it is implied that the crisis can lead to a nuclear disaster. As for parody, the

aspect of incorporating an existing text is present. When it comes to irony, as another

aspect of parody that Wesseling mentions, the anachronism described seems to mock history

itself rather than the historical events the chapter is concerned with. The chronology of

history is disrupted as easily as it suits the narrator, it seems.

Counterbalancing the presence of the anachronism in chapter four, is the fact that it

is the only one present. In conclusion then, it can be stated that chapter four is set against a

historical background that might include references to the Cuba Crisis. If this is indeed the

crisis Barnes refers to, this chapter could be said to contain a counterfactual element, but it

is not made specific in the narrative. Even if it were so, the narrative as a whole does not

make a counterfactual impression.

The first part of Shipwreck, chapter five, describes a historical event. It is stated in

the afore-mentioned Authors Notes: The first part of chapter 5 draws its facts and

language from the 1818 London translation of Savigny and Corréards Narrative of a Voyage

to Senegal. The two men mentioned were among the survivors on the raft. As was

mentioned before, Wesseling has explained that parody demands some basic knowledge of

the historical event on the readers part. It is therefore unlikely that Barnes turned the report

of the eye-witnesses into a counterfactual narrative, as the event was probably not well-

31 See page 85: cartoonists started making jokes, about how [] Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer had a veryshiny nose because he came from Chernobyl. Other indications are the references to contaminated reindeer inLapland and people watching the trail of the poisonous cloud that resulted from the disaster. Besides, the nucleardisaster took place only three years before Barnes novel was published, so it was probably something the readerremembered well at the time.



58

known to all readers in the 1980s. It is not useful to start researching what the differences

might be between the witness report and Barnes account, as counterfactuality would not

make a point because the reader is not familiar with the historical background. This also

applies to the second part of chapter five, which relies heavily on Lorenz Eitners exemplary

Géricault: His life and Work (Orbis, 1982) (see the Authors note).

Chapter six, on Amanda Fergussons pilgrimage to Mount Ararat, is not based on one

event in particular. Barnes states on Amanda and her companion: they didnt exist, I made

them up; but in terms of what the journey was, I obviously relied on historical documents,

travels of the time (Guignery, 68). Because of this background, counterfactual elements are

not an issue here.

Chapter seven, part I is about the young man who meets Lawrence Beesley, survivor

of the Titanic disaster. This story is based on reality. Barnes comments on this: That simple

story is completely true, thats about me (Guignery, 66). Part II is based on the Biblical

story of Jonah. The Biblical narrative relates how Jonah is called by God to preach against

the city of Nineveh, because of its wickedness (The Holy Bible, Jonah 1.2). Jonah,

however, takes flight, but during a voyage by boat, a violent storm arises. When it becomes

clear he is the cause for their misfortune, Jonah, on his own suggestion, is thrown overboard

by the sailors. The storm calms and Jonah is swallowed by a big fish. After three days and

nights, it vomits Jonah out onto land. Next, Jonah does go to Nineveh, to tell them God will

overturn the city forty days later. The Ninevites repent and God, accordingly, decides to

spare the city. Jonah becomes angry at this, saying that this was the reason he did not want

to go to Nineveh in the first place: I knew you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow

to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity (The Holy Bible,

Jonah 4.4). Then, as Jonah sits outside of the city, watching it to see what will happen, God

makes a plant grow to give Jonah shade. The next day, however, God makes the plant die



59

again, and uses the example of the plant to teach Jonah about his (Gods) concern for

Nineveh.

Barnes narrative is not so much a fictionalised account of the biblical narrative. The

narrator relates the biblical story of Jonah, filled up with his or her own comments, and then

digs into the issue of Jonahs stay in the fish, its relation to art and to another account of

someone eaten by a large fish. Even though Barnes text is quite negative in its

interpretation of the Jonah narrative, the Biblical facts are not denied. The only exception

seems to be a passage on the plant that God had caused to grow for Jonah. God makes the

plant die again, and an explanation for this is given, but the Biblical one is different from the

one provided in Barnes text. The Biblical passage states:

9But God said to Jonah. Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?

I do, he said. I am angry enough to die.

10But the LORD said, You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it

grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty

thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be

concerned about that great city? (The Holy Bible, Jonah 4.9-11)

Barnes text states: Gods explanation []: you didnt punish the gourd when it failed you,

did you; and in the same way Im not going to punish Nineveh (176). Even though both

quotes seem to come down to the fact that God cares for Nineveh, Barnes passage presents

a somewhat illogical piece of reasoning on Gods side, which adds to the very negative image

of God in this part of chapter seven. Maybe this is the purpose of this counterfactual

element.

The negative image of God can also be a counterfactual element. Inserting various

comments on Gods nature and actions, the narrator expresses his view of God as being

cruel, competitive and so on, and the alternative explanation of the gourd story ties in with

this. No interpretations of the Jonah story have been consulted in writing this thesis, but it



60

seems unlikely that God has been put in such a negative light in conventional explanations of

the story. In a way, this narrative, despite its respect for most of the Biblical facts,

contradicts the traditional reading of the Jonah story.

The question remains whether this narrative is a counterfactual one. To those quite

familiar with the Bible, the contradiction between the passages on the gourd may be

striking. Those who are only vaguely familiar with the Jonah story, however, may not even

notice the alternative explanation of the vine-story. Barnes displays a playful way of dealing

with data, but some may not even notice. The negative image of God could be labelled

counterfactual.

Part III of chapter seven is based on a historical event. In May 1939, the ship St

Louis left the harbour of Hamburg, destination Cuba. There were 937 passengers on board,

most of whom were Jews. In fact, they were refugees, fleeing Nazi Germany. However, close

upon their arrival in Cuba, the validity of the visas of most passengers was denied. As a

consequence, the passengers, a few people excepted, were not allowed to disembark. After

much fruitless negotiation, an attempt to land in the United States, negotiations with a

number of South-American countries, and another attempt to land in Cuba, appeals to

political and religious leaders, the St Louis was forced to land in Europe again. The

passengers were taken up by Belgium, The Netherlands, Great Britain and France.

Barnes account of the St Louis event does not seem to contain any obvious

counterfactual elements. Barnes states on the narrative: I think when you get near areas

like Holocaust, unless you are particularly a special witness of them [] then I think you

have to be very very careful about using them in any way. Theyre almost sacred subjects

(Guignery, 68). This does not rule out counterfactuality in the narrative, but it does not make

major digressions of historical fact likely either.

Chapter eight, Upstream! is a difficult case. It consists of letters written by Charlie

to his girlfriend. The letters were written in the South-American jungle, where Charlie was



61

part of a film crew shooting a film there. The letters relate what happened in the jungle.

Charlie, and his co-actor Matt play the roles of two Jesuit priests in a film based on a true

story. This story involves two Jesuit priests who, some hundreds of years earlier, had

travelled upon the Orinoco on a raft, together with some Indians, with the raft capsizing at a

certain moment. When the twentieth-century film crew is rehearsing for filming the event of

the raft capsizing, an accident occurs and Matt, Charlies colleague, is lost in the river and

not found again.

The story of Charlie as well as the story that the film is about are not well-known. On

the discussion board of the Julian Barnes website, two suggestions are made as to the

background of chapter eight.32 One person suggests a documentary on Spanish

conquistadors who went upstream the Orinoco, in a way that reminded her of Barnes

chapter. Another person puts forward the film The Mission (1986). 33 This film is about two

Jesuits in South America. When their mission becomes part of Portuguese territory, and the

mission is ordered closed by the pope, the Indians living there become the prey of

Portuguese slave traders and the Jesuits are faced with the choice of how to react to this:

with or without violence. Whether either of the two suggestions on the discussion board

have anything to do with chapter eight, the differences with Barnes narrative are major.

Maybe it can be said that the documentary, the film and chapter eight have been based

upon general information on Jesuit missions, or even explorers, in South America. And,

maybe Barnes has been inspired by the phenomenon of turning issues like this into a film.

Against such a general background, counterfactuality is not a useful issue to discuss.

Parenthesis is a kind of monologue and it is suggested that the narrator can be

identified with Barnes himself. In the interview mentioned before in this chapter of my

thesis, Barnes suggests this himself. It would be quite an investigation to check the facts

concerning the narrators life that are presented, and it will not be done here. Chapter nine is

32 www.julianbarnes.com. Under discussion board see the subject of A History & history.33 The Mission, dir. Roland Joffe, Warner Brothers, 1986.



62

based on historical data. Chapter nine deals with Spike Tiggler, a former astronaut who sets

out to find Noahs Ark on Mount Ararat. Spikes story strongly resembles the history of James

Irwin, also an astronaut who experienced God on the moon and later went on an expedition

to Mount Ararat. Barnes narrative is clearly a fictionalised narrative. It reveals some private

moments between Spike and his wife Betty of which it is hard to imagine that similar

moments between Irwin and his wife are publicly known. An omniscient narrator is present,

as thoughts and feelings of Spike and Betty are revealed of which, again, it is hard to

imagine Barnes draws from publicly known data.

There are differences between history and Spikes story. One difference between

Barnes narrative and Irwins life is that Spikes story takes place about three years later than

that of James Irwin. Two other major differences between reality and story are the

experience of God on the moon, and the focus on the Ararat expedition after the moon trip.

When Spike is on the moon, he hears Gods voice telling him to go and find Noahs Ark on

Mount Ararat. This is his basic experience of God. Of James Irwin, it is said that his

experience was one of feeling Gods presence, and also of being reminded of a Bible verse

from Psalm 121: Ill look into the hills from whence cometh my help.34 In chapter nine,

Spike is busy raising funds for his expedition within a years time of the space flight, and,

together with reading his Bible this is what is mentioned as the action that flows from his

newly found convictions. James Irwin followed a different course. He resigned from the

Astronaut Corps a year after his space flight and became the founding president of the High

Flight Foundation, and [sic] interdenominational evangelical organization [] The

organization operates religious retreates [sic] and tours to the Holy Land.35 The first date

mentioned for one of his Ararat expeditions is 1982, which was about ten years after his

space trip. It seems that the Ararat expeditions were part of his religious life. In Spikes case,

the Ararat expedition is pictured as the first main consequence of his experience on the

34 The website that mentions the episode of Irwin quoting Psalm 121 does not mention which translation of theBible the quote was taken from. See: www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jbirwin.htm.35 See the website mentioned in footnote 34.



63

moon. The difficulty is, to establish whether the differences between the two versions are

minor adjustments or essential contrasts.

Again, as in previous chapters, the reality is that most readers will not even recognise

the counterfactual elements if they were there. James Irwin was not a famous person,

though he was probably well-known for a time. Probably most readers will not even know

that chapter nine is based on history. It seems evident that Barnes deliberately strays from

historical fact in the last section of chapter nine. The fictional character of the rest of the

narrative, however, makes one wonder whether Barnes in any way meant to present a

counterfactual narrative here.

Chapter ten is about heaven, and it is suggested that the narrative is a dream. As the

narrative is a personal story of a narrator whose identity remains obscure, the issue of its

counterfactual aspect is irrelevant.

Taking all the chapters of A History into consideration, it is obvious that Julian Barnes

employs a playful way of dealing with historical facts. Chapter one seems the best example

of counterfactuality. Chapter seven might be counterfactual in its negative portrayal of God

as opposed to the conventional ways of explaining the Jonah story. Besides this, a number of

chapters are based on historical facts, and deviate from them as well, but are still not easily

labelled as counterfactual, for instance, chapter two (The Visitors), eight (Upstream!) and

nine (Project Ararat). The least that can be said about chapter two and eight is that, in the

interview with Vanessa Guignery, Barnes himself includes them in the chapters he states are

alternative narrations: I suppose the point at which Parenthesis comes is the point at

which Ive given a series of alternative narrations, dislocated in time and place (Guignery,

65). However, none of the three chapters mentioned (chapters two, eight and nine) can

clearly be proven to be counterfactual. Chapter four is a different case, as it is not for certain

that the flaw in chronology is actually present. The crisis that takes place after Chernobyl

could well be the Cuba crisis, in which case chronology has been tampered with. However,



64

this cannot be proven beyond a doubt. In chapter five, more will be said about the

counterfactual nature of Barnes novel.

Uchronian Fiction

Barnes novel contains a few counterfactual elements. The next question to answer is

whether it contains elements of uchronian fiction as well. Uchronian fiction has been defined

as fiction which locates utopia in history by imagining an apocryphal course of events

(Wesseling 102). Uchronian fiction is a subspecies of counterfactual historical fiction

(Wesseling 102). Counterfactual fiction has been looked at in the previous section, and it has

become clear that Barnes novel as a whole is not a clear case of counterfactual fiction. This

does not mean that it has become irrelevant to examine the novel for uchronian elements.

Besides its counterfactual aspect, uchronian fiction bears other features, and it would be

interesting to see what can be found of these in Barnes book. Next, characteristics of

uchronian fiction will be put forward and Barnes text will be examined for these

characteristics.

One of the most characteristic features of uchronian fiction, is that it imagines the

future from unrealised possibilities in the past. In other words, an alternative present or a

new future is imagined from thoughts like: what would have happened if not x but y had

won the war? It has been stated above that Barnes novel as a whole is not clearly

counterfactual, and so it is unlikely that this feature of imagining the future from an

alternative past is emphatically present in the novel in its described form. Chapter one has

been labelled as counterfactual. Woodworm presents an alternative past, but the question is

if this envisages possibilities for the future. Utopian ideals that might be present are that in

the future more attention will be paid to the fate of animals, or their importance in the world

or in history, or that people will employ a more balanced way of reading scripture. This last

ideal could also apply to chapter seven where the narrator depicts God as quite the opposite

of what traditional explanations might say about the Jonah narrative.



65

The flaw in chronology in chapter two which makes the ending of Achille Lauro hijack

the cause of the Santa Euphemia hijack, could imply the hope that governments in the

future will find different ways of dealing with terrorism. Still, it would be hard to prove that

the change in chronology implies some sort of hope for a new kind of future. The aspect of

finding a new future in an alternative past is not very clearly or overtly present in Barnes

novel.

Another aspect of uchronian fantasy, is that its alternative histories are clearly untrue.

They are not intended to compete with official historiography for truth value, to stake

epistemological claims. This applies to chapter one. It has been pointed out before in this

thesis that Woodworms authority is undermined by his animal way of looking at things.

Thus, the point of counterfactual fiction in this chapter is not that it actually happened the

way Woodworm describes it. This also applies to the anachronisms in chapter two and four:

the ending of the factual hijacking being the cause of the hijacking in chapter two, and the

Chernobyl disaster occurring before the Cuba Crisis (if that is the crisis referred to). It is

obvious that these are anachronisms.

A third characteristic of uchronian fiction, is that it adopts a critical attitude towards

certain political or social circumstances. It envisages alternatives, even alternative societies,

for the future. Another expression of its political or social concern is a redistribution of roles.

For instance: winners become losers and the other way around. There are a few instances of

social or political criticism in the text. One chapter that puts forward political issues is

chapter seven, part three, on the voyage of the St Louis. Besides illustrating the bad

circumstances in Nazi Germany, attention is paid to the politics (and economics) that was

involved in denying the ship access to the harbour of Havana, and some critical comments

are made on the reluctance of other countries to take responsibility for the fate of the Jews.

For instance, when the narrator mentions that the St Louis was nicknamed the ship that



66

shamed the world when it lay in the Havana harbour, it is said: The world, apparently, did

not feel its shame so strongly that it moved its hand to its wallet (185). 36

In chapter four, Kath is quite critical about various aspects of society. She is critical of

governments as well. After the nuclear disaster that caused poisoned reindeer meat, the

government allows meat to be sold that contains far too much radioactivity. Another aspect

of chapter four is interesting concerning a critical attitude. One of Kaths concerns is how

people treat animals. At Doctors Gully, where she takes the boat, fish are fed daily, and

people have to pay to watch them be fed. Kath thinks: nobody stops to think about the

world any more. We live in a world where they make children pay to see the fish eat.

Nowadays even fish are exploited, she thought (91). She is upset about the radioactive

reindeer being fed to the mink instead of being buried:

I think they should have buried them. Burying things gives you a proper sense of shame. Look what

weve done to the reindeer, theyd say as they dug the pit. Or they might, at least. They might think

about it. Why are we always punishing animals? We pretend we like them, we keep them as pets and

get soppy if we think theyre reacting like us, but weve been punishing animals from the beginning,

havent we? Killing them and torturing them and throwing our guilt on them? (86, 87)

This last quote ties in with chapter one, in which the human beings do not treat the animals

well. Woodworm also portrays people as blaming animals, for instance in the case of a

Hebrew legend that claims Noah obtained the concept of fermenting grapes from seeing a

goat get drunk on fermented grapes (29). The weakness, however, of the criticism that

chapter one and four utter concerning the relationship between man and animal, is that it is

uttered by individuals who do not come across as utterly trustworthy: a woodworm and a

woman who is psychologically unstable. Having presented these fragments from the text, it

is still not a solid claim to stake that the novel bears a socially and/or politically critical mark.

36 Money was a major aspect of the admission of the refugees to Cuba.



67

Still, it is obvious that the human race does not get off unscathed, and it is sometimes

criticised considerably.

An other aspect of uchronian fiction is that it concerns itself with those who lost in

history, rather than with those who won or were successful. Also, likewise, it is interested in

those who did not make the records, or who were relegated to insignificance in the records

(Wesseling viii). Chapter four is set against the background of the Cuba Crisis (or at least,

some major political crisis), but it does not focus on those who are politically important.

Instead it focuses on a politically unimportant, though fictional, individual. Kath herself

expresses a concern for the losers in her world: animals, and especially reindeer.

The tribe of Indians in chapter eight, Upstream, is an example of people that are

forgotten by world history. Charlie expresses that the tribe had been lost for a few hundred

years, after the feat with the two Jesuit missionaries, until they were rediscovered by the

films researchers. Charlie wonders if they will disappear again after the film has been shot,

or be wiped out by some disease. The tribe is clearly not of world historical importance. The

same can be said for people like Amanda Fergusson in chapter six. On page 53 I have

explained that Barnes relied on historical documents for writing chapter six. It is not exactly

clear whether these documents actually speak of Ararat expeditions. Still, even if historical

documents were the source for Amandas story, those documents are not of world historical

importance to most people. The case with chapter six, however, is that it is strongly related

to chapter nine, on Spike Tiggler, who is modelled on a more famous person. Maybe Barnes

just needed another Ararat story for thematic purposes, and chose the subject matter for

chapter six accordingly.

A final issue in uchronian fiction is the connection between history and power. For

instance, versions of history reflect political interests and function as instruments of power.

The subjective origins of sources are pointed out, and the subjectivity of historiography is

explained in political terms, for instance by showing that power play went into the making of



68

the historical records. In chapter one, Woodworm claims that Noah thought it more

appropriate to state that the dove, rather than the raven, had found the olive tree. Page 25

states : Noah had it put about that the raven, instead of returning as soon as possible with

evidence of dry land, had been malingering, and had been spotted (by whose eye? not even

the upwardly mobile dove would have demeaned herself with such a slander) gourmandising

on carrion. The raven, I need hardly add, felt hurt and betrayed at this instant rewriting of

history. Together with the image painted of Noah and his family throughout chapter one,

this passage illustrates how those in power rewrite history according to their liking. On page

six, the Fall is described as Adams black propaganda, which also suggests tampering with

historical facts by humans.

Chapter five enters upon the relation between the shipwreck of the Medusa and

Géricaults painting of it. In part two, the narrator mentions a number of aspects of the

shipwrecking that Géricault did not paint, and makes suggestions as to what Géricaults

concerns were in painting this canvas. For instance, the narrator points out that Géricault did

not paint the Medusa striking the reef( 126), and concludes from this that Géricaults first

concern was not to be [] political (127). He explains this as follows:

The Medusa was a shipwreck, a news story and a painting; it was also a cause. Bonapartists attacked

Monarchists. The behaviour of the frigates captain37 illuminated a) the incompetence and corruption of

the Royalist Navy; b) the general callousness of the ruling class towards those beneath them. Parallels

with the ship of state running aground would have been both obvious and heavy-handed. (127)

Somewhere among the narrators suggestions, he comments on the title of Géricaults

painting: The title of The Raft of the Medusa, incidentally, is not The Raft of the Medusa.

The painting was listed in the Salon catalogue as Scène de Naufrage Scene of Shipwreck.

A cautious political move? Perhaps. But its equally a useful instruction to the spectator: this

37 He had discarded advice from his crew.



69

is a painting, not an opinion (129). It is questionable whether the title of Géricault was

actually a political move. However, it is possible that Géricault was indeed trying to keep his

work of art from being read as an opinion. Either way, the narrator points to the fact that

representations of history can become politically charged, and that this influences the

creative process. However, while it cannot be denied that the narrator points at the

relationship between politics and representation of history, it has to be stressed that the

chapter focusses on the relation between history and art, not history and historiography.

This section on uchronian fiction has shown that aspects of uchronian fiction are

definitely present in the novel. The question remains whether this means that the novel,

despite the fact that it is not clearly counterfactual, does carry some characteristics of

uchronian fiction, or if the found results are expressions of other concerns, elements that

may have little to do with uchronian fiction. This will be looked at in the next chapter.



70

Chapter 5

Reviewing the Results

Chapters four and five have produced a body of information on what characteristics of self-

reflexivity and uchronian fiction38 can be found in A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters.

One of the next questions to be answered is what this information actually says about the

self-reflexive or uchronian quality of Barnes novel. Another question, which is the ultimate

question to be answered in this thesis, is whether the novel, according to the information

from chapters four and five, is a postmodernist historical novel as Elisabeth Wesseling has

defined it. The structure of this chapter will be the following. First attention will be devoted

to the self-reflexive nature of the novel and the uchronian nature of the novel, in this order.

Having discussed these issues, the half-chapter, Parenthesis, will be discussed to provide

further insight into the issues that Barnes novel is concerned with. Finally, conclusions will

be drawn as to if and how the novel matches Wesselings descriptions of the postmodernist

historical novel.

Uchronian Fiction or Self-reflexivity

The first issue to be discussed in this chapter is the self-reflexive nature of Barnes novel. It

has become clear in chapter three that A History contains a number of self-reflexive

elements. Several characteristics of historiography in the making can be found in the novel.

History in the making is present as well, but only one example was found, in chapter six

where Amanda Fergusson is shown to direct her own life. The question is, whether the novel

can be labelled as self-reflexive on the basis of these results. It has been stated before that

the various chapters of the novel differ in a number of ways and that the novel is not a

whole, in a way, and that for this reason efforts would be made to find more than one

38 Counterfactual fiction and uchronian fiction will no longer be mentioned separately from now on. However,whenever a text is uchronian, this implies that it is counterfactual as well, as uchronian fiction is a subdivision of counterfactual fiction.



71

example of each feature of self-reflexivity. For some characteristics this proved possible, in

other cases it did not. Still, I consider the examples that were found sufficient to state that

self-reflexive issues play a major role in the novel.

The second issue of importance is whether Barnes novel can be considered as

uchronian fiction. As was shown in chapter four, some counterfactuality is present in the

novel, especially in chapter one, The Stowaway. In a way chapter one could even be said

to contain a utopian aspect: Woodworms version of matters might cause people to develop

a new view of the animal kingdom,39 and of their own species as well. In that way, it might

influence peoples behaviour towards animals for the better in the future. Other somewhat

counterfactual elements could be found in chapter seven. Chapter seven presents the

narrative of Jonah as quite different from traditional interpretations of the biblical passage.

To abstract a utopian ideal from this alternative version could be somewhat farfetched. One

possibility could be that the narrator tries to provide some counterbalance to traditional

interpretations of the Jonah narrative that put God in a positive light. The aim would then be

that in the future people will consider this bible passage in a more balanced way. But it is

questionable whether this a utopian ideal.40 Also, uchronian fiction usually expresses some

kind of hope for the future, or involvement in an emancipative cause. In the case of the

Santa Euphemia narrative, the disruptive move could express a concern for what the western

policies on terrorism could effect in the end: more terrorism. Its utopian ideal would then be

that western governments will find different ways of dealing with terrorism. At the very least,

the change in chronology could be an expression of political criticism.

It has been argued in chapter four that the counterfactual elements in Barnes novel

do not try to compete with historiography. In that way, the novel is akin to uchronian fiction.

Also, some criticism of politics is uttered, which is the case in uchronian fiction as well.

39 For instance, by his descriptions of relations between animals, the cruelty of selection before embarkation, thesuffering endured on the Ark.40 In this section I have left out the example from chapter four, the anachronism of Chernobyl taking placebefore the Cuba Crisis, as I did not think it a very clear example of counterfactuality.



72

Besides this, A History focuses on unimportant individuals a number of times. But it is

difficult to prove that this is an expression of concern with the losers in history or

historiography. It is known that Barnes was looking for thematic unity, which could also be

the motivation for picking out or inventing certain characters. The connection between

history and power is exposed in the novel, though not many times.

Considering these results, it is difficult to label A History as a uchronian novel.

Chapter one, The Stowaway, does come quite close to being uchronian. It is counterfactual

and it draws attention to the relation between power and historiography. Besides this, some

other uchronian aspects seem present, which indeed connects the novel to the trend

(uchronian fiction) that Wesseling has described. However, to state that Barnes novel is

uchronian fiction seems like going too far.

In the interview with Vanessa Guignery that was mentioned before, Barnes says

some things that can help determine whether his novel is self-reflexive or uchronian in

nature. He states:



say something on my own part, on my own behalf. And at such a point, the reader would be quite

justified in saying to the writer Well, what do you think about it?. (Guignery, 65)

This passage has been quoted previously in this thesis. Barnes indicates that there is

something alternative about the narratives in A History (or, at least the ones before

Parenthesis). As was said before, Barnes does not say alternative history, or

counterfactuality, and basing absolute claims upon a particular wording of things in an

interview may not be the wisest thing to do. Still, the quote makes clear that Barnes does

not regard the chapters referred to as mere fictional adaptations of historical data.

The above quoted words on Parenthesis are succeeded by the following passage:



73

So, that part [Parenthesis] is mainly about love and truth, but its also against part of what the book

has already been doing, which is undermining traditional history. Its saying: Its no good just lying back

and saying Well, well never work it out and its no good saying Of course we understand history, all we

have to do is apply the following theories or the following scientific principles or Marxist ideology,

whatever. (Guignery, 65)

The first important issue in this passage is that Barnes labels his chapters, at least those

preceding Parenthesis, as undermining traditional history. This seems to confirm the

assessment that he does not see these chapters as mere fictional adaptations of historical

material. The question is, however, what exactly Barnes means with undermining. It could

mean trying to damage traditional historys credibility, as for factual accuracy. It could mean

merely mocking traditional history with alternative representations of the past, or casting

doubt upon traditional history by showing there might be other sides to the stories usually

told. It could also mean exposing the conventions of traditional history. I think that most of

these options apply to the novel, and that Barnes has tried to rob traditional history of the

exclusive authority concerning historical truth.

The question still remains whether A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters can be

labelled as self-reflexive or uchronian fiction. At this point it is useful to state that Elisabeth

Wesseling has explained that self-reflexivity and uchronian fiction are not always clearly

separable in literature. She mentions on page 114 of her book that some self-reflexive

novels occasionally address the political implications of historical research and narration,

while some counterfactual parodies incidentally alter canonized history in ways which seem

to make an epistemological rather than a political point. Maybe it is not necessary to try and

distinguish whether Barnes novel is self-reflexive or uchronian fiction. It might be a mixture

of the two. I think this is the case. A History clearly bears self-reflexive characteristics, but

some uchronian aspects are present as well. One chapter in particular that is helpful in



74

determining what Barnes novel is all about is Parenthesis. It will be discussed in the next

section.

Parenthesis

Parenthesis is the half chapter, which has not yet received much attention in this thesis.

While discussing this chapter of the novel, it is important to remember what Barnes has

stated in the interview with Vanessa Guignery, namely that Parenthesis is at the point

where it is time to say something on my own part, on my own behalf. And at such a point, 41

the reader would be quite justified in saying to the writer Well, what do you think about it?

(Guignery, 65). Parenthesis reflects some of Barnes own thoughts on a number of issues.

The first few paragraphs of this section on Parenthesis will focus on what issues are dealt

with in this half chapter. Later on these issues will be commented on.

Parenthesis is a monologue on various issues. The first issue dealt with is love.

Taking his own relationship42 as a starting point, the narrator puts forward various issues

related to love, such as love and literature, the use of the phrase I love you, and the

nature of love (how did it come into existence, what does it effect). Finally, the narrator

claims he can tell us why to love:

Because the history of the world, which only stops at the half-house of love43 to bulldoze it into rubble, is

ridiculous without it. The history of the world becomes brutally self-important without love [] Love

wont change the history of the world [], but it will do something much more important: teach us to

stand up to history, to ignore its chin-out strut. (240)

41 That is, the point after having given a series of alternative narrations, dislocated in time and place. See thequote on page 67.42 As the narrators partner is a female, and it is also suggested that the narrator could be identified as Barneshimself, I shall, for conveniences sake, assume that the narrator is male.43 Before this passage, the narrator has drawn a comparison between love and half-houses (Barnes, 240).



75

Here, history and love are presented as opposed to one another. History is compared to a

bulldozer, and is something we have to stand up to. Love saves history from self-importance

and defends us against history.

In the next paragraph of Parenthesis the narrator says that love makes people tell

the truth. Next, the narrator states: We get scared by history; we allow ourselves to be

bullied by dates [] Dates dont tell the truth. They bawl at us left, right, left, right, pick

em up there you miserable shower. They want to make us think were always progressing,

always going forward (241). The narrator then states that the date 1492 is always

remembered, for Columbus discovery of the New World (241), but that 1493 is just as

interesting, and he, indeed, tells an interesting story about Columbus return, how an

ordinary sailor had been the first one to sight the New World, but that Columbus was

awarded the prize for this achievement. The sailor supposedly moved to Morocco and

became a renegade.

Having stated the above-mentioned things on love and history, the narrator has more

to say. The next quote is from page 242:

History isnt what happened. History is just what historians tell us. There was a pattern, a plan, a

movement, expansion, the march of democracy; it is a tapestry, a flow of events, a complex narrative,

connected, explicable. One good story leads to another. First it was kings and archbishops [], then it

was the march of ideas and the movements of masses, then little local events which mean something

bigger, but all the time its connections, progress, meaning, this led to this, this happened because of

this. And we, the readers of history, the sufferers from history, we scan the pattern for hopeful

conclusions, for the way ahead. And we cling to history as a series of salon pictures, conversation pieces

whose participants we can easily reimagine back into life, when all the time its more like a multi-media

collage, with paint applied by decorators roller rather than camel-hair brush.

This passage is about historiography. What people regard as history, it seems to say, is not

the same as what really happened, it is what historians tell us. Next, attention is paid to



76

the structures that historiography has imposed on history: patterns, movement and so on.

This specifically touches upon narrativity, which is one of the concerns of historiography in

the making. Thus, the above quote seems to confirm the conclusion that the novel is

concerned with self-reflexivity.

The above quote is followed by another meaningful paragraph:

The history of the world? Just voices echoing in the dark; images that burn for a few centuries and then

fade; stories, old stories that sometimes seem to overlap; strange links, impertinent connections. We lie

here in our hospital bed of the present (what nice clean sheets we get nowadays) with a bubble of daily

news drip-fed into our arm. We think we know who we are, though we dont quite know why were here,

or how long we shall be forced to stay. And while we fret and writhe in bandaged uncertainty are we a

voluntary patient? we fabulate. We make up a story to cover the facts we dont know or cant accept;

we keep a few true facts and spin a new story round them. Our panic and pain are only eased by

soothing fabulation; we call it history. (242)

One of the remarkable things of this passage is that it seems to hint at aspects of Barnes

own novel. Stories that seem to overlap, strange links, impertinent connections: this looks

like a description of the novel as a whole, especially the connections between the chapters.44

The image of a patient in bed, with a drip in the arm, is reminiscent of chapter four, The

Survivor. Part of this chapter takes place in some kind of hospital where Kath Ferris is being

treated for her psychological problems. The drip in her arm is mentioned a few times.

Besides this, Kath is the kind of person who sees connections between all kinds of things, in

a way that most people do not. Kath, who suffers from psychosomatic symptoms, is told that

she fabulates: the technical term is fabulation. You make up a story to cover the facts you

dont know or cant accept. You keep a few true facts and spin a new story round them

(109). Fabulation is also mentioned in the above quote. In Kaths case fabulation means

that, for instance, she claims she left her boyfriend because of the war that had started (or

44 Some of these connections were described in chapter three of this thesis, under narrativity (historiography inthe making).



77

so she thought it had), while denying this had anything to do with the state their relationship

was in. At a certain point she starts living in a new story of her own, namely of being on a

boat and landing on a deserted island. While leaving on a boat was what she actually did,

she was found and admitted to hospital. Even then, she continued living in her own story

and confused her moments of contact with the real world with nightmares.

The second quote from page 242, unlike the first one from that page, does not

clearly focus on historiography. The history of the world is described as: voices echoing in

the dark; images that burn for a few centuries and then fade; stories, old stories [];

strange links, impertinent connections. It is not explicitly stated whether this is history as

presented by historians, thus focussing on historiography, or the way all people deal with

history. The second half of the quote given above is somewhat clearer in its focus. It

stresses that fabulation is something we all do. And we mistake our fabulation for history.

This paragraph of Parenthesis seems to express that, what people usually call history is a

kind of mixture of various elements, or somewhat of a man-made construction.

After the quoted paragraph, the narrator continues to speak on love, some of its

effects, its nature. At a certain point, he claims that love is our only hope, and that we can

believe this, while knowing it is likely to cause unhappiness in the short or long run. Next, a

comparison is drawn with objective truth: We all know objective truth is not obtainable,

that when some event occurs we shall have a multiplicity of subjective truths which we

assess and then fabulate into history (245). But the narrator later adds to this:

we must still believe that objective truth is obtainable; or we must believe that it is 99 per cent

obtainable; or if we cant believe this we must believe that 43 per cent objective truth is better than 41

per cent, because if we dont were lost, we fall into beguiling relativity, we value one liars version as

much as another liars, we throw up our hands at the puzzle of it all, we admit that the victor has the

right not just to the spoils but also to the truth []

And so it is with love. We must believe in it, or were lost. We may not obtain it, or we may obtain it and

find it renders us unhappy; we must still believe in it. If we dont, then we merely surrender to the



78

history of the world and to someone elses truth. (245-46)

Love and truth have something in common: we must believe in them, despite their

downsides.

At this point, having presented much of the contents of the half chapter, it is useful

to start assessing what this information says about the nature of the novel. Some of the

issues touched upon are related to politics or society. For instance, the way people use or

misuse the phrase I love you. Another example is that the narrator claims that love is

a starting-point for civic virtue. You cant love someone without imaginative sympathy, without beginning

to see the world from another point of view. You cant be a good lover, a good artist, or a good politician

without this capacity (you can get away with it, but thats not what I mean). Show me the tyrants who

have been great lovers. (243)

Some more comments on the relation between politics and love follow this passage.

Passages like these confirm that the novel is concerned with matters concerning society and

politics, as was also stated in the section on uchronian fiction in chapter four. It must be said

that the way these matters are dealt with here is not very uchronian-like, for instance in the

direct approach to these issues, and in foregrounding love as the answer to most of these

issues, even, it is suggested, to something like tyranny.

Much of Parenthesis focuses on the problems that surround what is called history.

History becomes ridiculous and self-important without love. We are scared by history and are

bullied by dates. Dates do not tell the truth. History is not what happened, but what

historians tell us, including their narrative techniques. History is made out of echoes, images,

stories, connections. Fabulation is mistaken for history. Most of these issues have to do with

self-reflexive issues rather than with politics or society. The recommended solution for these

problems, namely (belief in) love, and belief in objective truth, despite their weaknesses, is

not uchronian at all. Some of it could be identified with self-reflexivity. Believing in objective



79

truth, even if it is only partially obtainable, does seem like something that a self-reflexive

novel could come up with. It is even reminiscent of the feature of enclaves of authenticity

that was discussed in the section on historiography in the making. The solution of believing

in love, on the other hand, is a new element, which in my opinion is not characteristic of

either uchronian fiction or self-reflexivity.

On page 246, the narrator slips in a (for Parenthesis) new element: we must also

believe in free will. [W]hen love fails us, we must still go on believing in it. Is it encoded in

every molecule that [] love will fail? Perhaps it is. Still we must believe in love, just as we

must believe in free will and objective truth. Free will is mentioned in other chapters as well.

In chapter six, Amanda Fergusson declares to her companion: There always appear to be

two explanations of everything. That is why we have been given free will, in order that we

may choose the correct one (154). At the end of the chapter this issue reoccurs. Miss

Logan, Amandas companion, is struggling with her doubts concerning the nature of

Amandas fall on the mountain, whether it was an accident or caused to happen on purpose

by Amanda herself? It is then stated: Miss Fergusson had maintained, when they first stood

before the haloed mountain, that there were two explanations for everything, that each

required the exercise of faith, and that we have been given free will in order that we might

choose between them. This dilemma was to preoccupy Miss Logan for years to come (168).

In chapter seven, part II, the narrator comments on the story of Jonah: theres a crippling

lack of free will around or even the illusion of free will (176). What the narrator aims at, is

the fact that God is the one in control, and accordingly there is no room for free will.

One chapter that focuses particularly on free will is chapter ten, The Dream. This

chapter presents a dream about heaven.45 The character this chapter focuses on tells the

reader about this dream, his own dream. What is striking about his portrayal of heaven is

that it totally revolves around his own wishes and desires. Everything he desires is there in

45 It is suggested that the chapter relates a dream, but in an ambiguous way. The chapter starts with: I dreamt that I woke up. Its the oldest dream of all, and Ive just had it. I dreamt that I woke up (283).



80

exactly the way he likes it to be, and everything he wishes for happens. Heaven is how he

wants heaven to be, which is made explicit several times. On page 304, the main characters

assistant, Margaret, notes: Weve got free will sorted out here, as you may have noticed

(304). Because of the set-up of chapter ten, namely that heaven is how the narrator wants it

to be, it is hard to distinguish any facts or rules, or other absolutes that apply to the

narrators heaven. The main rule is that heaven is what one wants it to be. 46

What is striking in the story of chapter ten, is that it becomes clear that every person

there will eventually opt to die off, or, in other words, cease to exist. When the I asks

Margaret how many people choose to die off, she answers: Oh, a hundred per cent, of

course. Over many thousands of years, calculated by old time, of course. But yes, everyone

takes the option, sooner or later (305). It seems that getting what you want, endlessly, at

some point has been enough. One may enjoy it for ages, but in the end it cannot satisfy

people without end. At some point all people will want an end to heaven, when they have

had enough. There are varieties as to how long it takes people to come to that point where

they want it to end. For example, lawyers and scholarly people last long. Writers and

painters, on the other hand, last shorter.

The main character thinks he might know an answer to the problem of wanting to

die off in the end: wanting to be someone who never gets tired of eternity (308).

Margaret explains that it has been tried before, but that there seems to be a logical

difficulty. You cant become someone else without stopping being who you are. Nobody can

bear that (308). This is quite an complicated matter. Margaret explains that one person who

tried out being someone who never tires of eternity, said that it was changing from being a

runner to being a perpetual motion machine. After a while you simply want to run again

(308). Besides the question whether this is a plausible image of what it would be like to be

46 Some things that are mentioned in chapter ten seem to be exceptions to this rule. For instance, when the maincharacter is disappointed, sad or worried, or when things happen he does not expect. It is also somewhat strangethat the characters assistant supposedly suffers from a heart condition (291). Another peculiar aspect is that everyone is there, meaning also Hitler, Stalin and the like. Naturally, some of these exceptions could beexplained by the fact that somehow they were part of the main characters desires.



81

someone who never gets tired of eternity,47 it is interesting that becoming someone who

never gets tired of eternity is not pleasant in heaven. In the same conversation between the

I and Margaret some other interesting remarks are made. These are present in the quote

below, in which the I is the first one to speak.

It seems to me, I went on, that Heavens a very good idea, its a perfect idea you could say, but not

for us. Not given the way we are.

We dont like to influence conclusions [] However, I can certainly see your point of view.

So whats it all for? Why do we have Heaven? Why do we have these dreams of Heaven? She didnt

seem willing to answer, perhaps she was being professional; but I pressed her. Go on, give me some

ideas.

Perhaps because you need them, she suggested. Because you cant get by without the dream. Its

nothing to be ashamed of. It seems quite normal to me. Though I suppose if you knew about Heaven

beforehand, you might not ask for it.

Oh, I dont know about that. It had all been very pleasant []

After a while, getting what you want all the time is very close to not getting what you want all the

time. (309)

Chapter ten seems like a thought-experiment about what heaven would look like if free will

was the general rule. And it has become obvious that such a place cannot satisfy people

endlessly. They can keep it up for ages, but not forever. It seems that there can be a catch

to having a world where all your wishes are fulfilled. Not that this means it is not enjoyable,

or something you would not ask for if you knew what it was like, according the above quoted

passage.

Free will is an issue in several chapters and in Parenthesis it is mentioned as

something we should believe in, just as we should believe in love and objective truth (which

also have catches to them). The question is why the narrator presents it as something so

important. One suggestion: free will seems somewhat opposed to history as an objective

47 Can being someone else than before be unbearable if indeed you have become someone else?



82

process. One of the things Barnes novel pays critical attention to, is the idea of history being

an objective process, with some kind of structure in it. History is not an independent

phenomenon that heads in a certain direction (see the quote on pages 70 and 71). Stressing

free will, then, is in accordance with this.

Two more aspects of Parenthesis will be discussed in detail. The first aspect

concerns the effects of not believing in love and truth that are mentioned. On pages 245 and

246 the narrator of Parenthesis explains that people should believe in love and objective

truth. The reasons that are given for this are quite interesting. It is said that we should

believe in objective truth, despite the fact that only a percentage of it is obtainable, because

if we dont were lost, we fall into beguiling relativity, we value one liars version as much as

another liars, we throw up our hands at the puzzle of it all, we admit that the victor has the

right not just to the spoils but also to the truth. A similar remark is made on love: We must

believe in it [love], or were lost. We may not obtain it, or we may obtain it and find it

renders us unhappy; we must still believe in it. If we dont then we merely surrender to the

history of the world and to someone elses truth (246). Belief in love and belief in truth are

presented as weapons: against relativity, surrendering to other peoples versions of history

or truth and the history of the world.

The narrator thinks there is a danger in not believing in love and truth, in a way that

is reminiscent of a passage in Wesselings book, on Robert Coover, a writer. On page 144,

Wesseling states the following:

Stories are an indispensable means for orienting ourselves in a confusing and chaotic world, Coover

argues, but when one of them gains a monopoly it becomes dangerous:

All of them [stories], though, are merely artifices that is, they are always in some ways false,

or at best incomplete. There are always other plots, other settings, other interpretations. So if

some stories start throwing their weight around, I like to undermine their authority a bit, work

variations, call attention to their fictional natures. (Mc Caffery 1983: 68)



83

In other words, there is a danger to allowing one story a monopoly to the truth. In the quote

from A History, the danger has to do with the fact that versions can be those of a liar or

the victor (246). It does matter to which version you attribute credibility, the text says. The

phrase victor is of interest here, because it has a political ring to it. It is reminiscent of the

self-reflexive feature of political selectivity, which points out that the historical records focus

on the politically successful. This could happen again if we allow the victors version to

triumph over other versions. The phrase is also reminiscent of the uchronian characteristic of

foregrounding the relationship between history and power. Versions of history reflecting

political interests, or functioning as instruments of power: these issues could become

relevant in a situation where the victor gains the right to the truth. In short it can be said

that the passages on page 246 of A History point out that relativity could lead to a situation

where the versions of the wrong people are accepted. This is why we should believe in

objective truth and in love. Among the wrong people is the victor, which seems

significant, since it is a political term, and is reminiscent of a self-reflexive as well as a

uchronian feature. Our attitude towards history is of importance to society and is relevant to

politics. This to me seems akin to uchronian thought.

Finally, it is interesting to mention that the form of a dream in chapter ten may be

significant as well. Wesseling explains on pages 111 and 112 of her book that Uchronian

fantasy speculates about the future by way of a detour through the past. This has to do

with the demise of progressivist, meliorative views on the course of the historical process

(111), which then translates into a demise of straightforward projection of utopian ideals

into the future as well (111). On page 112 Wesseling says:

Moreover, counterfactual fantasy complies with the emphasis which contemporary social sciences and

philosophy place on the extent to which the individual subject is determined by linguistic and

languagelike social conventions. Where literature and literary theory are concerned, this shift in world



84

view has instigated a reorientation toward esthetic concepts such as invention, originality,

autonomy[] Consequently, the imaginative anticipation of the future which attempts to raise itself

above extant social conventions has ceased to convince us. (112)

Chapter ten presents a place where free will has been sorted out (304). It may be

significant that Barnes has used the form of a dream to reflect this place. He has not naively

tried to imagine a world where free will has been sorted out better than in the here and now.

Maybe this means that, just like the authors of uchronian fiction, Barnes is aware of the

inability of man to create a better society in the future, which in this case would be a world

where free will has been worked out better.

In conclusion it can be said that, based on the examples from the text and the

statements that are made in Parenthesis, the novel is characterised by a self-reflexive

focus. Some characteristics of uchronian fiction are present as well, but the self-reflexive

aspect of the novel is more dominantly present. Elisabeth Wesseling has explained that some

postmodernist historical novels are characterised by self-reflexivity, and Barnes novel can

evidently be linked up to this trend. Some aspects of uchronian fiction seem to be present as

well. Still, the novel as a whole could not be labelled as uchronian fiction.



85

Conclusion

In chapter 1 of her book, Writing History as a Prophet, Elisabeth Wesseling has stated that

the predominance of historical subject matter in postmodernist fiction can be regarded as

something of a revival for the historical novel (2). However, the postmodernists have dealt

with history in a different way than their classical and modernist predecessors had.

Wesseling has illustrated classical and modernist historical fiction in chapters III, IV and V of

her book. The information from these chapters has been presented in chapter two of this

thesis. Characteristic of Sir Walter Scotts novels was the complementary position it took up

towards historiography. Characteristic of the classical historical novel were the descriptions of

the couleur locale. Major anachronisms or clashes with historical records were avoided.

Authors of the historical novel in the way of Scott also ascribed a certain didactic aspect to

their fiction. Scott has influenced the genre of the historical novel for a considerable period

of time. In the twentieth century, his influence on historical fiction is gone. Because of the

rise of historicism and developments in the field of the philosophy of history, things looked

quite different in the twentieth century. The historical novel was not very much in fashion

with the Modernists, but still some renewal of the genre took place. Modernists introduced

self-reflexivity, and worked this element into the narratives of their novels (instead of

restricting it to prefaces and so on, like previous authors had done). In Postmodernism, self-

reflexivity is continued. Also, a new kind of self-reflexivity appears, which does not reflect

upon the making of historiography, but of history itself. It questions the very existence of

the res gestae as an independent level of historical discourse (Wesseling 120). 48 Besides

this,

Postmodernist novelists [«] depart from the traditional historical novel by inventing alternate

48 res gestae refers to the subject matter of historiography: the deeds performed in the past (as opposed to the

historia rerum gestarum, the narratives about those deeds).



86

versions of history, which focus on groups of people who have been relegated to

insignificance by official history. In this way, unrealized possibilities that lie dormant in

certain historical situations are brought to our attention (³What would have happened, if«?´).

These apocryphal histories inject the utopian potential of science fiction into the generic model

of the historical novel, which produces a form of narrative fiction one could call ³uchronian.´

In the course of describing self-reflexive and uchronian historical fiction, Wesseling has mentioned

certain characteristics of both types of fiction. In chapters three and four of this thesis, the characteristics of

postmodernist historical fiction have been ³tried out´ on a novel from 1989, Julian Barnes¶ A History of the World

in 10 ½ Chapters. This novel consists of ten and a ³half´ chapters, and deals with world history, but not in a

conventional way. It has been interesting to find that this novel is quite concerned with self-reflexive issues. The

novel displays a concern with self-reflexive issues such as the exposure of partial historical knowledge and

narrativity. This last element explains peculiar reoccurrences of certain items, such as woodworms or

bitumen.The counterfactual nature of Barnes¶ novel is a less straightforward issue. A number of chapters convey

narratives that are linked to historical data, but also differ from the historical data. And still, these differences

between historical records and Barnes¶ narratives are not easily labelled counterfactual either. Besides employing

a playful way of dealing with historical data, Barnes also pays attention to the relationship between history and

power. All in all, the novel can be seen as characterised by self-reflexivity. To label the novel as uchronian is a far

more difficult venture.



87

References

Achille Lauro Hijacking Mediterranean Sea October 1985. International Special

Operations and Counterterrorist Operations, 2000. Special Operations.Com, 1998-

2002.

< http://www.specialoperations.com/Images_Folder/library2/achille.html >

Barnes, Julian. A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters. London and Basingstoke: Picador,

1990.

Bels. A Hijack on the High Seas Part Two, 8th May 2002. Ed. Danny B. h2g2: The Guide

to Life, the Universe and Everything, February 2001. bbc.co.uk 2005.

< http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a731701 >

Bertens, Hans and Theo Dhaen. Het Postmodernisme in de Literatuur. Amsterdam:

Synthese, 1988.

Bertens, Hans. Het Postmodernisme in de Literatuur, Van het Postmodernisme. De

Kunstreeks. Ed. J. Boomgaard and Sebastián López. Amsterdam: SUA, 1985.

Bertens, Hans. The Postmodern Weltanschauung and its Relation with Modernism: An

Introductory Survey. In Approaching Postmodernism: Papers Presented at a

Workshop on Postmodernism, 21-23 September 1984. Ed. Douwe Fokkema and Hans

Bertens. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1986.



88

Guignery, Vanessa. History in Question(s): An Interview with Julian Barnes. Sources 8,

printemps 2000. Obtained via www.julianbarnes.com, and also available at

www.paradigme.com.

< http://www.julianbarnes.com >

The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing

House, 1984.

Wesseling Elisabeth. Writing History as a Prophet: Postmodernist Innovations of the

Historical Novel. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1991.

scriptiehelemaal

Documents