Forced Migration Narratives and the Nation-State: ‘Out’ and ‘Go, Went, Gone’

Forced Migration Narratives and the Nation-State: ‘Out’ and ‘Go, Went, Gone’

This article offers a critical comparison of representations of forced migration and law in Out (1964) by Christine Brooke-Rose and Go, Went, Gone (2015) by Jenny Erpenbeck. The literary value of forced migration themes can be seen in how they act as a pivot point between literary imaginaries, the representation of trauma, and the real-world effects of law and politics on displaced people. Brooke-Rose’s Out explores the supposed cultural decline of mid-twentieth century Britain through a tension between identity politics and law. By contrast, Erpenbeck’s Go, Went, Gone [Gehen, ging, gegangen] uses the well-worn postcolonial trope of exile to frame its story of conversion. Where Out and other literary works stage a socio-cultural change wrought in the wake of forced migration, Go, Went, Gone presents a narrative of contrition for its protagonist. Both Brooke-Rose’s and Erpenbeck’s narratives hinge on their protagonists negotiating the legal complexities that govern refugees of forced migration. This article will explore how these novels offer a glimpse of the conservation of the modern nation-state that is a real-world site of the legal, cultural, and political circumscription of people displaced by forced migration.