Discussion

Return to Philosophy Proseminar

"A History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters" by Julian Barnes

Chapter 1

In case you were curious about Noah's Family...

Chapter 2

...

Chapter 3

So in this chapter is basically an excommunication trial transcript. In the transcript, the woodworms are on trial for excommunication.

Chapter 5

I thought this was one of the most interesting chapters so far. I read this chapter as Barnes approaching the painting with an awareness of meta-narratives. Here is a link to meta-narratives on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanarrative. A meta-narrative is basically a way of reading history as having a singular unity; for example, feminists would say that patriarchy has taken a phallocentric approach to reading history. Historical events are given meaning in a meta-narrative in the way chapters in a novel are given meaning by their relation to what came before and after (does this book refuse to be read that way?).

So, Barnes analyzes how Gericault chooses what to paint in order to make the whole event make sense in line with a meta-narrative. I think that if we take the idea of events making sense in a particular reading of history, then perhaps every chapter of this novel has tried to provide a different meta-narrative. We always read history as humans, but what does history look like to a woodworm?

I wonder if you guys buy this idea of the meta-narrative. I think it is fascinating. It is interesting to be aware of these meta-narratives in our own lives and cultures - especially since, as liberal arts majors, I think that we are likely candidates to perpetuate these meta-narratives.

-Peter Henggeler

In response to Peter,

While reading the chapter, I had no idea that this was potentially a meta-narrative. Hadn't really thought of that. Now that you mention it, i can see how it fits in with the chapter and the book as a whole. In some ways its seems as though the book tries to rebel from these pre-conceived meta-narratives, although i don't know enough about them to make any kind of assertion.

In light of this, i wonder what the woodworms are then? Do they fit in at all with the meta-narrative concept?

-Kobywarren 23:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I started thinking of the meta-narrative idea, frankly, because I first learned about it earlier this week. Still, I think that maybe one of the reasons we find this book frustrating is because it does not fit in very well with how we have understood history. There is no progress, no chronology, no answers, etc. How can this book be about history when it does not match what we understand to be history? I agree with you that this book rebels against meta-narratives - especially the way we read history. In some chapters, we are given a different narrative than our own. In other chapters, the story is not concluded in a way that stories are traditionally and satisfactorily concluded (was that lady nuts or not?).

I don't know about the woodworms, really. Maybe, however I read the woodworms, I will be giving their story the qualities of my own (for instance, even calling it a "story") and therein relapsing into my own meta-narrative. - Peter Henggeler