A Posthuman Approach to BrexLit and Bordering Practices through an Analysis of John Lanchester’s The Wall

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has a very clear and organised structure and grounds its argumentation in a sound state of the art introduction, which is also commented upon in order to prepare the following sections. Paragraph 3 presents an original approach to the text through a posthuman approach.It seems to me that the conclusions quickly mention the connection between climate crisis and the migration of the population that then tries to overcome the wall. This is another very original aspect of the novel that the author has highlighted. I would advise to give more space to this aspect as well in a paragraph or integrated in paragraph 3 where there is only a brief mention that remains unclear in the context of the overall argumentation of the paragraph (see lines 385-386).

Last observation, line 83-84: "Brexit proves Kristeva wrong", "following Kristeva's thought": I think it needs to be reformulated.

The final sentence of the conclusions seems to me a little ambiguous as it seems to refer to the last quoted novels Middle England and The Cut

Author Response

Thanks so much for your comments and suggestions, which I’ve now incorporated into the latest version of my article.

I have strengthened the ties between climate crisis and migration as you and several other reviewers suggested.

I have also reformulated the paragraph where I quote Kristeva for clarity. I have also reconstructed the final sentence of my conclusion in order to remove any ambiguity.

Reviewer 2 Report

I found the article compelling and well-researched. The survey of BrexLit novels is particularly helpful, and the study of the main novel is succinct and supports the central thesis. The text needs some minor editing and some clarification of terms. Also, further short explanations of some concepts will help the reader. Please see below: 

Section 1:

The paper begins with the statement that millions now on the move. I suggest reframing this to indicate that there is an increasing number of people on the move since millions have been on the move for a long time.

There is mention of people moving from Central to North America, and Middle East to Europe, this is true but does not address other important routes. Possibly also mention Latin America to North America, Africa to Europe, and movement within Africa, Latin America, and Asia (maybe also within Europe).

The author addresses migrancy in a general way by discussing people seeking asylum together with other migrants. I think the differences/similarities need to be clarified, as well as the difficulties/problems with certain categories. 

The paper gives some explanation of British border epistemologies in section 3. It would be helpful to give a brief description earlier on and indicate that the topic will be given more attention later.  Also, beyond BrexLit are there other works that illuminate British border epistemologies?

Section 2:

There are missing quote marks in the opening paragraph.

It would be helpful to explain the distinctions between immigrant and refugee and how these categories are formed.

It is important to note that foreigners, immigrants and refugees were turned into subaltern subjects before Brexit.

Check accuracy of quotes such as this one (see bold): "We need to ensure we’re all literary and hypothetically, speaking the same language” (Byers 2018, 253)

I suggest reconsidering the use of the term 'refugee crisis'. Maybe refer to the issue in a way that centres the humanitarian crisis when responding to people crossing borders. 

Section 3:

Lanchester is described as a migrant, but I assume his experience is very different from the people who were demonised by regimes such as Brexit. Here and on other places (as I have indicated) some clarification would be helpful.  

Again, clarify issues pertaining to the use of migrant and refugee together.

Explain British border epistemologies in some more detail.

Does the novel mention the border between Europe and North Africa, or only western Middle East countries?

Again, reconsider the use of the term 'refugee crisis'

General comments:

Some excellent work has been done on bordering and related themes in critical border studies which is missing here. Some engagement and reference to this work will improve the paper (eg. Yuval-Davis, Khosravi, Mountz, El-Enany, Tazreiter, McNevin, Bosworth, etc.). Also, some excellent and critical journalism work and grassroots activism has been done in this area that I think will support many of the arguments. 

In relation to the impact, meaning and epistemic value of literature in refugee resistance I suggest considering Anne McNevin's contribution, “Epistemic Violence, Aesthetic Breaks, and the Man Who Loves Ducks”, in Freedom, Only Freedom: The Prison Writings of Behrouz Boochani (Bloomsbury 2023). Also, the introduction to the book by Omid Tofighian addresses many of the important points you make about literature in your article (albiet regarding a different context). Tofighian's translator's note to Boochani's autobiographical novel, No Friend but the Mountains: Writing from Manus Prison (which fuses many different genres), is also relevant. In addition, the journal Southerly has a special issue dedicated to refugee writing from detention centres in the Pacific (controlled by Australia) - 79.2 Writing Through Fences: Archipelago of Letters. The many references to knowledge production and resistance through literature and art throughout the publication may be helpful. 

Minor editing necessary 

Author Response

Thanks very much for your comments and suggestions, which I’ve now incorporated into the latest version of my article.

The missing quotation marks have been added, and typos and other stylistic issues have been amended accordingly.

I have also added some simple definitions of the terms ‘migrant’ and ‘refugee’ (although the distinction between the two could easily be the subject of another academic paper). I’ve also addressed Gordon K. Lewis’s ‘pull and push’ factors in the article’s introduction.

I have introduced Kristen Sandrock’s concept of ‘British border epistemologies’ in section 1 as suggested, though due to another reviewers comment, my approach to this concept has been toned down to a more casual mention.

The recommendations regarding section 2 were also implemented by verifying the accuracy of the quotations and reconsidering the use of terms such as ‘foreigner’, ‘immigrant’ and ‘refugee’. In my analysis of Hamid’s Exit West, the term ‘refugee crisis’ has been replaced with ‘humanitarian crisis’; and, as suggested, Lanchester is no longer referred to as a ‘migrant’, rather as someone who experienced migration as a child.

However, regarding the suggested addition of further references, whilst I agree that they may compliment a text such as The Wall, I believe that the insertion of any of these references would hinder my interpretation of the text from a posthuman perspective. Overall, I would like to thank this reviewer for their contributions and I believe the new revision of my article is more compelling and focused thanks to the suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

“British Border Epistemologies” argues that speculative fiction novels such as Lanchester’s The Wall (2019) stage a response to the tensions and fears of a vast world of others intensified by Brexit’s hardening of borders imaginary and real. The article frames its analysis of The Wall by reviewing how posthumanist theorization (Haraway, Bradiotti) informs ‘othering’ discourses. The argument of the paper is that among BrexLit texts, The Wall in particular is a good example of how a speculative novel uses Sandrock’s British Border Epistemologies to represent and critique Brexit and attendant refugee and climate crises.

Overall, this is a succinct and thorough review and exploration of how ‘BrexLit’ represents and critiques the insularity, neo-nationalism, and racism underpinning Brexit boosterism. It also effectively explores how and why speculative fiction is so well-suited to examinations of the reasons for and effects of Brexit. 

While the essay as it stands is persuasive and enlightening, I wonder if it couldn’t be strengthened by moving points made in the Conclusion into the introductory and main sections of the essay. The Conclusion contains many of the essay’s best points: its close analyses of how The Wall stages a posthumanist critique of Brexit-inspired nationalist, border and othering ideologies adds an important textual elaboration of the essay’s preceding sections. By combining these parts of the essay with the explication of the narrator’s moral breakthrough, the essay would then highlight what is still resolutely human in its posthuman speculations. That, to this reviewer, is one of the novel’s arguments. The narrator achieving his moral breakthrough only after having the chip removed (becoming a post-cyborg), working for his survival with the others on the raft, discovering the selflessness of the old castaway on the raft, and being in love, suggests that The Wall recuperates certain affective and/or emotional aspects of humanity in its depiction of a future of posthuman subjects. Complicating this future, of course, is the question of whether there will indeed be a future.     

There are a few points that need correction and/or minor revision:

On page 2, there is a problem with the Kristeva paraphrase, which is actually a quotation from the English translation of her Etrangers à nous-mêmes. First, it is not “a chocked up rage” but “a choked up rage”. The reference entry must also be adjusted to include the English translation title (Strangers to Ourselves), and the name of the translator (Leon S. Roudiez). There is a similar problem on page 5: the quotation from The Paper Lantern lacks quotation marks.

Add some more textual evidence from The Wall to support the points being made in the summary and descriptions on pages 6-7.

“Takes it to another level”, “goes one step further” – avoid these phrases.

The sentence “From a posthuman perspective, The Wall posits a reconfiguration of the human subject” (7) cries out for elaboration. It is not clear if the following paragraph is meant to provide this elaboration; if so, then perhaps that sentence should be that paragraph’s first sentence.

There are a few minor English errors that can easily be corrected.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which I’ve now incorporated into the latest version of my article. The previously-absent quotation marks have been found and reinstated, and the typos and other stylistic issues have been modified accordingly. Following their suggestions regarding the protagonist’s process of realisation following their chip removal, I’ve moved content from the conclusion into the article’s analytic body.