Recollection and historiography are key themes within Joy Kogawa’s novel Obasan, which not only discusses but also engages in historiography through the use of government documents and other primary sources relevant to the internment of Japanese-Canadians during World War II. It follows that most literary criticism and scholarship of Obasan has at least secondarily discussed historiography. However, the literature that is primarily concerned with historiography has tended to focus more specifically on the book’s underlying ideas on the dynamics of historiography and the construction of history. Within this relatively small body of scholarship there has developed a dominant strain of thought, represented in this case by the work of literary
…show more content…
In turn, however, there has been some criticism of this view, for example, from scholar Rachelle Kanefsky, who argues that Obasan actually makes a case for the possibility and presence of “authoritative historical reality” (Kanefsky 14). Aside from this central disagreement there are some smaller divergences among the first group relating to power, language, and identity which I will review as well. Goellnicht’s article, “Minority History as Metafiction: Joy Kogawa’s Obasan,” is the earliest and most foundational work on the subject. In it, he argues that Obasan problematizes historiography and the act of turning “empirical events into historical texts” by integrating traditional source material and a fictional narrative into the same text (Goellnicht 288). He further explains that this purposefully draws parallels between the ways history and fiction are made and creates a disruptive mixture. Goellnicht, drawing from literary scholar Linda Hutcheon, labels the product “historiographic metafiction,” which Hutcheon essentially defines as both placing itself in history and historiographical discourse and, at the same time, maintaining a sense of “fictional and linguistic autonomy” (289). He argues that Obasan, as “metafiction,” is
In turn, however, there has been some criticism of this view, for example, from scholar Rachelle Kanefsky, who argues that Obasan actually makes a case for the possibility and presence of “authoritative historical reality” (Kanefsky 14). Aside from this central disagreement there are some smaller divergences among the first group relating to power, language, and identity which I will review as well. Goellnicht’s article, “Minority History as Metafiction: Joy Kogawa’s Obasan,” is the earliest and most foundational work on the subject. In it, he argues that Obasan problematizes historiography and the act of turning “empirical events into historical texts” by integrating traditional source material and a fictional narrative into the same text (Goellnicht 288). He further explains that this purposefully draws parallels between the ways history and fiction are made and creates a disruptive mixture. Goellnicht, drawing from literary scholar Linda Hutcheon, labels the product “historiographic metafiction,” which Hutcheon essentially defines as both placing itself in history and historiographical discourse and, at the same time, maintaining a sense of “fictional and linguistic autonomy” (289). He argues that Obasan, as “metafiction,” is