A Chronicle of Forms, Not Forces: Petitioning and Class Struggle in the English Revolution

Brodie Waddell’s recent History Today essay provides a valuable catalogue of petitioning in early modern England, showcasing thorough archival research—tracking signatures, reconstructing subscription networks, and analysing how Elizabethan Puritan tactics were later adopted by apprentices, washerwomen, and Leveller activists. This kind of empirical social history work is essential. However, framing petitioning as a “technology of collective voice’ introduces a formalism that strips political meaning from revolutionary history, resulting in a focus on structural forms rather than the underlying forces.

Petitioning did not simply evolve from elite subscription campaigns into mass mobilisation. Instead, antagonistic social groups captured, repurposed, and fought over it, driven by interests that were not only different but fundamentally opposed. The gap between the Elizabethan gentry’s push for more Church reform and the Levellers’ call for near-universal male suffrage marks not a smooth progression of civic practice but a rupture: the rise of a plebeian political movement challenging the limits of a gentry-led revolution. Framing this as a steady development of “petitioning habits” overlooks the class conflict within the parliamentary camp—an aspect thoroughly examined by historians like Christopher Hill, Brian Manning, and Ann Hughes.

Waddell’s evidence repeatedly hints at this conflict without naming it directly. The 1629 Chester “poor householders” invoking “the general good” against “private profit” were not just early users of civic technology; they were expressing an emerging class language that would become more explicit in the 1640s. The washerwomen protesting Charles I’s soap monopoly weren’t expanding “public voice” but resisting a royal economic attack on their livelihoods. The bold claim—quoted but not examined—that Leveller organisers could have mobilised “a hundred thousand hands” for their 1648 petition if Cromwell’s agents hadn’t obstructed them isn’t just a minor detail.

This clearly shows that the independent elites strengthening their power following the regicide were deliberately suppressing mass petitions from the plebeian left. This illustrates the class-based character of the post-1649 settlement, not just a statistical aspect of petitioning history. To grasp petitioning during the English Revolution, we should go beyond the liberal-pluralist idea of rising “voice” and view petitioning as a disputed social dynamic. In this arena, different class forces vied to steer the revolution’s direction.

Gentry Petitioning: Pressure Without Transformation

The Root and Branch petition of 1640, which gathered 15,000 signatures, is often seen as a sign of emerging mass politics. However, its class background is clear. Property reformers—merchants, clergy, and the parliamentary gentry—organised it to influence the Crown toward ecclesiastical and constitutional changes. Petitioning here was primarily a way to mobilise respectable public opinion, not to challenge existing property structures. It served as a tool for a political effort to reshape the state while maintaining the social hierarchy. This context is what Waddell considers the baseline: orderly lists of signatures, processed through parish systems, expressing grievances that did not threaten the core of propertied society.

By the early 1640s, different social groups had taken over petitioning. Artisans, apprentices, watermen, porters, and small producers used petitions to voice local grievances about monopolies, prices, military impressment, and corruption. Their language—”general good” versus “private profit”—reflected emerging class tensions, not civic virtue. This shift didn’t represent a broader “voice” but rather the political emergence of groups previously shut out of formal politics. The revolutionary crisis broke down the usual barriers that kept the poor, women, and the unpropertied outside public affairs. Petitioning then became a tool for those whose interests conflicted with the parliamentary gentry.

The Levellers turned petitioning into a powerful tool for mass democracy. Their campaigns from 1647 to 49 — calling for legal reform, religious freedom, freeing political prisoners, and almost universal male suffrage — marked a significant advancement. Petitioning shifted from a pressure tactic within the parliamentary coalition to a direct challenge to the parliamentary leadership.

The scale of Leveller petitioning was unparalleled, with tens of thousands of signatures collected from London wards, army regiments, and provincial towns. The claim that “a hundred thousand hands” might have been gathered in 1648, had Cromwell’s agents not intervened, shows the extent of popular mobilisation and the fear it instilled among the ruling class. Waddell reduces this to simply “mass petitioning,” but in reality, it signifies the rise of a revolutionary democratic movement that challenged property limits.

Once the Independent grandees consolidated power after the regicide, petitioning became a battleground of counter-revolution. The same authorities that had promoted petitions against the Crown swiftly turned to suppress those threatening their authority. Leveller organisers were detained; petitioners were scattered; women petitioners faced violence, imprisonment, and in some cases, death. The harsh crackdown on the August 1643 women’s petitioners—initially depicted by Waddell as unfortunate crowd violence—actually reveals how rapidly the parliamentary state was willing to deploy force against popular mobilisation that went beyond its limits. Petitioning was tolerated only when it aligned with property interests.

The essay’s conclusion—linking 17th-century petitions, abolitionism, Chartism, suffragism, and the 2019 Brexit e-petition—highlights the depoliticising trend of this genre. It shifts from a history of revolution, counter-revolution, and class struggle to a narrative focused on civic technology. The five million signatures of the Chartists are presented in the same continuum as a modern online petition against trade policies, stripping away the political stakes that separated a movement advocating for working-class voting rights from a 21st-century clicktivist act.

This illustrates Whig history dressed as social history: authentic archival efforts to recover popular agency are overshadowed by a story of an expanding “voice,” which perceives the state as a neutral stage gradually inviting more participants, rather than an instrument of class domination that needed to be challenged through revolution.

A serious examination of Civil War-era petitioning must confront the question raised by Waddell’s own evidence: whose interests did this “collective voice” serve, and against whom was it directed? Moreover, who moved to suppress it when it threatened to transcend the boundaries set by the parliamentary gentry? Petitioning during the English Revolution was not a developing civic practice leading toward modern democracy. Instead, it functioned as a battleground where the lower classes temporarily gained control of political communication, only to face repression when their demands challenged the interests of property-holders.

Brodie Waddell stands at the centre of today’s post‑revisionist social history: archivally rich, methodologically sophisticated, and politically cautious. As a leading figure at Birkbeck and an ex officio representative for Cultural & Social History, he helps set the tone for a generation of scholarship that foregrounds “ordinary people” while avoiding the class‑analytic frameworks that once defined radical Civil War historiography.

His work on petitioning, parish politics, and popular protest exemplifies the dominant trend: history from below without class. Waddell recovers voices, practices, and local interactions, but frames them through communication, identity, and “political participation,” rather than through the structural antagonisms that shaped those practices. Where Hill or Manning would ask what class forces produced these forms, Waddell asks how people “made their voices heard.”

The result is a liberal‑pluralist narrative of expanding civic inclusion — a story of participation rather than transformation. Petitioning becomes a technology of communication, not a weapon in a struggle between plebeian democrats and parliamentary grandees. Conflict is catalogued but depoliticised; revolution is rendered as a sequence of practices rather than a clash of forces.

In short: Waddell is the exemplary historian of a depoliticised social‑history moment — invaluable for evidence, limited in explanation, and firmly within the consensus that has displaced class analysis from the study of the English Revolution.

Sources and Bibliography: Brodie Waddell

Books

  • God, Duty and Community in English Economic Life, 1660–1720, Boydell Press, 2012.
  • The Power of Petitioning in Early Modern Britain (co‑authored with Jason Peacey), UCL Press, 2024.
  • Petitions and Petitioning in Europe and North America: From the Late Medieval Period to the Present, Oxford University Press, 2024. (Co‑authored with Huzzey, Janse, Miller, Oddens, Waddell)

Major Journal Articles

  • “The Popular Politics of Local Petitioning in Early Modern England” Journal of British Studies (2024).
  • “Work and Identity in Early Modern England” (with Mark Hailwood) Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (2023).
  • “The Economic Crisis of the 1690s in England” The Historical Journal 66:2 (2023).
  • “The Rise of the Parish Welfare State in England, c.1600–1800” Past & Present (2021).
  • “The Evil May Day Riot of 1517 and the Popular Politics of Anti‑Immigrant Hostility in Early Modern London” Historical Research (2021).
  • “Verses of My Owne Making”: Literacy, Work, and Social Identity in Early Modern England, Journal of Social History (2020).
  • “Writing History from Below: Chronicling and Record‑Keeping in Early Modern England” History Workshop Journal (2018).
  • “The Politics of Economic Distress in the Aftermath of the Glorious Revolution, 1689–1702” English Historical Review (2015).
  • “Governing England Through the Manor Courts, 1550–1850” The Historical Journal (2012).
  • “Economic Immorality and Social Reformation in English Popular Preaching, 1585–1625” Cultural and Social History (2008).

Book Chapters

  • “Economic Life” In Understanding Early Modern Primary Sources (2016).

Edited Collections & Collaborative Works

  • The Future of History from Below: An Online Symposium (with Mark Hailwood) The Many‑Headed Monster (2013).
  • Plebeian Cultures in Early Modern England: Thirty‑Five Years After E.P. Thompson (with Mark Hailwood), Social History 34:4 (2009).
  • Introduction: Petitions and Petitioning in Historical Perspective (Huzzey, Janse, Miller, Oddens, Waddell…) in Petitions and Petitioning in Europe and North America (2024).

Archival & Digital Scholarship

  • The Power of Petitioning in Seventeenth‑Century England (AHRC project, 2019–21). Project outputs include datasets of 3,800+ manuscript petitions.

Valeria Luiselli’s Beginning Middle End: A Private Reckoning That Avoids the World It Names

Valeria Luiselli’s Beginning Middle End centres on themes of crisis. Its unnamed narrator and her twelve-year-old daughter travel through a Sicily shaken by volcanic activity and erratic weather patterns; migrants linger on the story’s fringes; and the stresses of separation and remarriage have fractured a family. This backdrop sets the stage for a novel that could insightfully reflect on 2026—a period marked by mass displacement, ecological disaster, and the weakening of institutions that once supported working-class life. Luiselli explicitly recognises these issues, naming them openly, yet her overall engagement with these themes remains somewhat limited.

The novel centers on a more specific issue: a writer’s struggle to create her book. The narrator is fixated on choosing a form, obsessing over ‘beginnings,’ and makes this uncertainty the heart of her story. This reflects a common trend in contemporary literary fiction — shifting focus from social realities to the writer’s internal process, where anxiety about writing takes precedence over genuine engagement with the characters’ circumstances. The migrants, Manuela and her mother in Sicily, function more as atmospheric elements, providing a backdrop for the narrator’s divorce and her somewhat distant new partner. The volcano symbolizes self-doubt and uncertainty rather than posing a literal danger.

This retreat emphasizes social context over personal choice, reflecting the authors’ social class and distancing from the intense crises they mention. Instead, they draw on these crises to examine themes such as identity, motherhood, and the evolving nature of the self. Mythological references—Proteus, Ovid, Pliny—give an impression of ancient universality but mainly aestheticize dislocation instead of clarifying it. Actual migration driven by capitalism involves obvious forces like war, austerity, and exploitation of the global South. Luiselli’s Sicily does not include these elements and primarily serves as a backdrop for inner reflection.

Luiselli’s Earlier Work and the Arc Toward Beginning Middle End

Valeria Luiselli’s earlier works — Tell Me How It Ends (2017) and Lost Children Archive (2019) — were widely praised as urgent political responses to the U.S.–Mexico migration crisis. They connected with the liberal-left by offering a humanitarian view on displacement: personal, essay-like, emotionally powerful, and highlighting the moral responsibilities of witnesses, lawyers, and artists. Yet, even at their most outward-looking, these works revealed the limits of Luiselli’s political scope.

While ‘Tell Me How It Ends’ effectively examines migration, it primarily centers on the asylum process within bureaucratic frameworks. The violence resulting from U.S. imperialism—such as wars, coups, and economic devastation causing displacement—remains largely outside this focus. The crisis is presented more as a moral failure of institutions rather than a consequence of capitalism’s systemic effects. Similarly, ‘Lost Children Archive’ adopts this viewpoint, depicting migrant children as symbols in a hybrid essay-novel that investigates documentary ethics, family disintegration, and narrative vulnerability. In this context, migrants are portrayed as symbolic figures in a reflection on representation, rather than as historical actors motivated by particular forces.

This progression clearly advances from Beginning to Middle to End. The initially political focus that shaped Luiselli’s work has transformed into an atmosphere filled with tremors, metaphors, and fleeting shadows. While the humanitarian issues remain, they are now woven into autofiction’s introspective lens. The crises previously explored are now only acknowledged to be integrated into the narrator’s personal reflection. As a result, the social context becomes more confined, whereas the self’s significance expands.

Luiselli’s evolution exemplifies a wider trend in the pseudo-left literary scene: shifting from external humanitarian critique to inward-focused autofiction, from depicting crisis to aestheticizing it, and from engaging politically to avoiding politics. Her early work referenced history, but her latest novel diverges from it. This shift is intentional and mirrors the social position of today’s dominant writers. This group senses instability but cannot envision collective action, so they transform crisis into mood, metaphor, and personal drama.

Autofiction as Ideological Retreat

Luiselli’s method reflects a wider ideological trend rather than an isolated artistic decision. The rise of autofiction in recent years aligns with a sense of political disorientation among the professional-managerial intellectuals. Facing a world perceived as overwhelming—politically stagnant, socially divided, and historically obscure—this group retreats inward. They place their trust in the self, viewing it as the only realm where meaning can be regained.

Autofiction’s core technique is turning structural crises into personal moods. Issues like migration, ecological breakdown, and institutional decay are portrayed as atmospheric disturbances—serving as material for introspection rather than direct analysis. The writer’s anxieties, relationships, and creative struggles are amplified to symbolize universal themes, while the underlying forces remain unexplored. In this process, crisis is transformed into metaphor, and politics into ambiance.

This inward focus reveals the authors’ social standing: they are culturally cosmopolitan and institutionally vulnerable, yet protected from the harsh realities of austerity, war, and displacement. While they sense instability, they do not confront its most severe aspects. Consequently, social crises seem distant, symbolic, and suitable for aesthetic expression rather than political explanation. Autofiction’s engagement with politics — issues like climate change, migration, and identity — tends to serve as moral signaling rather than providing analysis. It aligns with the pseudo-left’s experience-based politics: anti-materialist, anti-historical, and deeply pessimistic about collective action.

Luiselli’s novel exemplifies this tendency. It registers crisis but cannot enter it. It names the world but refuses to explain it. The narrator’s private reckoning becomes the novel’s horizon; the world’s crises remain unresolved, unexamined, and fundamentally unimportant.

A Shrinking Horizon

Valeria Luiselli holds a unique place in contemporary literature as a writer known for her political seriousness. Her work increasingly reveals the ideological confines of the professional-managerial class she comes from. Typically associated with the “politically engaged” faction of modern fiction—writers exploring migration, borders, ecological issues, and state violence—her approach is rooted more in humanitarian concerns linked to NGOs than in a materialist Her role in modern literature is twofold. She is a talented stylist who reflects the anxieties of a social class experiencing instability but unaware of its causes. Additionally, she symbolizes a literary culture that hints at political engagement but ultimately pulls back—an aestheticization of crisis rather than direct confrontation with the systemic forces behind it. Luiselli is significant because she exposes the limitations of the current “political novel.” Her work demonstrates how social crises can be easily absorbed into the personal dramas of the educated class, with the humanitarian instinct often replacing thorough historical analysis. She is not an outsider but a representative figure, embodying the trajectory of modern literature—focused inward, self-reflective, creatively formal, and politically evasive when clarity is needed.

Luiselli’s talent is clear, marked by sharp prose, innovative structure, and emotionally impactful portrayals of mother and daughter. However, her mastery, confined to a specific scope, highlights an important issue. Like many autofiction pieces in Anglo-American literature, the emphasis is mainly on personal consciousness as the primary subject, with social influences briefly touched upon and then largely overlooked.

This novel, which explores themes like migration, divorce, and ecological disaster, concludes with a private family mosaic—symbolizing personal healing—and chooses a restrained scope despite its mythic embellishments. Its craftsmanship makes it worth reading, though it offers limited insights into the worlds it depicts. Luiselli’s talent as a stylist remains strong; however, her career’s trajectory shows a narrowing of focus—from global issues to personal reflection, from historical context to mood, and from politics to introspection. “Beginning Middle End” isn’t a departure from her previous work but rather its natural culmination.

Sources and Bibliography

Primary Works by Valeria Luiselli

  • Faces in the Crowd (2011) — Luiselli’s debut novel, exploring fragmented identity and literary self‑reflexivity.
  • The Story of My Teeth (2013) — An experimental novel centred on an auctioneer named Highway; notable for its collaborative origins.
  • Tell Me How It Ends: An Essay in Forty Questions (2016) — Nonfiction account of the U.S.–Mexico migration system, structured around the intake questionnaire used in immigration proceedings.
  • Lost Children Archive (2019) — A hybrid novel‑essay about a family road trip and the U.S. child‑migration crisis.
  • Beginning Middle End (2026) — The new novel, centred on a mother and daughter in Sicily amid environmental instability and personal upheaval.

Additional nonfiction and editorial work includes Sidewalks (2010), Papeles falsos (2010), and contributions to anthologies such as The Best Short Stories 2022.

Secondary Sources and Bibliographic Listings

  • Reading Order Books – Complete Bibliography: Comprehensive listing of Luiselli’s works across nonfiction and fiction, including publication dates and series categorisation.
  • FictionDB – Author Bibliography: Publication timeline, awards, and genre classifications for Luiselli’s major works.
  • Goodreads – Works by Valeria Luiselli: ratings, editions, and publication years for Luiselli’s novels, essays, and editorial projects.

Critical Context and Reception

  • Awards and Recognition
    • Faces in the Crowd — L.A. Times Book Prize for First Fiction (2014).
    • Lost Children Archive — Andrew Carnegie Medal for Excellence in Fiction (2020).
  • Genre and Thematic Classification: Luiselli’s work is consistently shelved under literary fiction, alternative history, and themes of family, migration, and identity.
  • Publication and Translation History: Luiselli’s books have been widely translated and published internationally, with multiple editions across languages.

Suggested Further Reading (Critical and Theoretical)

  • John Freeman (ed.), Tales of Two Cities — includes Luiselli’s contributions and situates her within contemporary urban nonfiction.
  • Scholarship on autofiction and class:
    • Lauren Oyler, Fake Accounts (for contemporary autofiction’s ideological tendencies)
    • Ben Lerner, The Hatred of Poetry (for the self‑reflexive turn in modern literature)
    • Critical essays on the professional‑managerial class and cultural production (e.g., David Graeber, Barbara Ehrenreich)

The Limits of Liberal Fiction in the Age of Mass Deportation: Valeria Luiselli’s Lost Children Archive and the Crisis of Artistic Consciousness

The American literary scene widely praises Valeria Luiselli’s Lost Children Archive (2019) as a compassionate, innovative book that tackles the migrant crisis. It demonstrates that contemporary fiction can still meaningfully engage with social issues. Nonetheless, both its reception and content reveal a key problem: the significant political and artistic restrictions within a literary culture dominated by the professional-managerial class. This cultural sphere fails to see the working class as an active force in history, which hinders a true understanding of the crisis’s underlying dynamics.

The migrant crisis is a concrete issue, not just a metaphor or moral tale, nor a backdrop for middle-class introspective concerns. It results from decades of imperialist actions, economic destruction, and bipartisan violence. Genuine art should face these truths directly, but Luiselli’s novel, despite its intelligence and sincerity, does not fully achieve this.

Aestheticisation as Social Function, Not Accident

Luiselli is keenly aware of the risk of turning suffering into mere aesthetic display. Her narrator often questions whether she has the right to “document” tragedies. However, this self-awareness is woven into the aesthetic framework—acting as a ritual that reassures readers that the issue is recognised, thus excusing it. The novel’s use of multiple voices, embedded documents, a Sebald-inspired style, and lyrical abstractions is not just a stylistic device; it transforms horror into a literary experience for readers who are shielded from the violence. The educated, liberal audience is prompted to feel intensely and to experience “productive discomfort,” while still avoiding confrontation with the social forces behind the crisis or their own links to those forces. This is not a flaw in technique but a reflection of the social role that liberal fiction currently occupies.

A key feature of Lost Children Archive is its minimal depiction of ordinary Americans as political figures. As the family journeys from New York to Arizona, passing through many working-class areas, the people they encounter are shown as silent, indifferent, or prejudiced. The borderlands are depicted as hostile territory. This choice is deliberate and reflects a class perspective: Luiselli’s protagonists are essentially documentarians with grants, passports, and credentials. They see the world divided into two groups: educated, compassionate professionals like themselves and a vague mass of backward or indifferent Americans. The working class—whether native-born or immigrant—lacks the power to challenge or dismantle the detention system, and notions of collective action are absent from the novel. This is a political restriction, not merely a stylistic choice. It mirrors the perspective of the social group that currently leads literary production: the upper-middle-class intelligentsia. Their political views are heavily influenced by identity politics, emphasising moral witness and a profound scepticism toward the working class.

Luiselli draws a parallel between nineteenth-century Indigenous removal and twenty-first-century child detention. Although this comparison is historically significant, the novel predominantly expresses mourning rather than providing analysis. The ongoing violence is depicted as a lament for an unchanging American identity, rather than as an examination of the specific class forces driving current policies. The danger lies in presenting American violence as transhistorical, which makes the migrant crisis appear inevitable instead of a consequence of decisions made by particular political actors pursuing specific economic goals. While the bipartisan support for deportation—growing under Obama and escalating under Trump—is acknowledged, it is not critically analysed. This approach creates a historical narrative that lacks agency.

The shortcomings of Lost Children Archive are not unique to Luiselli but highlight a broader trend in American literature. The overseeing professional-managerial class—spanning publishing, academia, and the arts—lacks political clarity. It often opposes universalist politics, mistrusts the working class, and treats social crises more as moral spectacles than opportunities for action. This leads to a literature that emphasises witnessing over analysis, prioritising empathy over solidarity, and introspection over mobilisation. Migrant suffering becomes a matter of aesthetic experience rather than a call for collective intervention. The migrant crisis isn’t mainly about representation; it originates from capitalism, imperialism, and border militarisation. No stylistic innovation can substitute for a political perspective that addresses these root causes.

The Class Character of Contemporary American Fiction

Contemporary American fiction often presents itself as morally serious, politically active, and innovative in form. It claims to tackle urgent social issues such as inequality, racism, climate change, migration, and political turmoil. Yet, this surface-level activism conceals a profound stagnation artistically and politically. Currently, the dominant trends in American literary fiction tend to reflect the narrow viewpoints of the professional-managerial class involved in producing, distributing, and consuming these works, rather than portraying the full complexity of social realities.

The literature discussed is characterised by a formal dynamism paired with political caution, blending emotional expressiveness with social distance. It is rich in moral sentiment but often fails to imagine collective efforts or historical transformation. Its central figures are introspective professionals whose crises are rooted in personal trauma, and their political concerns mainly involve ethical dilemmas. The primary focus remains on the self. This pattern is deliberate and mirrors the class dynamics inherent in contemporary American fiction.

The Professional‑Managerial Class as Cultural Gatekeeper

The American literary world—comprising publishing companies, MFA programs, literary magazines, award panels, and cultural bodies—is mostly governed by the professional-managerial class (PMC). This group, which includes academics, editors, nonprofit employees, cultural administrators, and credentialed artists, occupies a conflicted position within capitalism. While they benefit from material advantages over the working class, their political security is precarious, as their dependence on institutions has weakened due to decades of neoliberal reforms.

The PMC’s worldview shapes its literature, viewing politics through personal anxiety instead of collective struggle. Social crises are portrayed as moral spectacles rather than structural conflicts, while the working class is seen either as a threat or an abstraction. Moreover, historical forces are often seen as tragic inevitabilities rather than results of class dominance. This worldview is not merely ideological but institutional, as the PMC controls what is recognised as “serious fiction,” which themes are “urgent,” what forms are “innovative,” and which writers are seen as voices of conscience. As a result, the literature produced reflects the PMC’s anxieties more than the genuine experiences of most people in the United States.

Contemporary American fiction often features the literature of witness: novels depicting social disasters through the perspective of educated observers who feel deeply but take little action. These works are filled with empathy, introspection, and moral discomfort, treating suffering as something to be documented, archived, or artistically processed. They reveal political views by emphasising that the individual is the main focus of political experience, the reader’s emotional reaction replaces political analysis, the author’s self-awareness stands in for political commitment, and collective agency is either absent or hard to imagine. This literature is not neutral; it reflects a cultural expression of a class that has lost confidence in its power to influence history and cannot see the working class as a societal force capable of transformation.

The PMC’s political stance is shaped by identity politics, which explains social conflict through personal identities instead of class issues. This view has significantly influenced modern fiction, resulting in literature where social crises are seen as personal problems, political systems are depicted through interpersonal relationships, historical events are interpreted via personal traumas, and solidarity appears as empathy rather than collective action. Identity politics leads writers to see social reality as a mosaic of individual experiences rather than a unified structure formed by class relations. It divides the world into separate moral issues, each needing recognition rather than change. This fragmentation is not only thematic but also formal, as the rise of polyphonic narratives, fragmented structures, and hybrid forms often reflects difficulty in imagining society as a coherent whole.

Migrant Narratives and the Pseudo‑Left’s Humanitarian Theatre

Valeria Luiselli’s work exemplifies a wider cultural trend in which migrant stories are cherished as moral symbols but often lack their historical and political depth. This pattern is intentional, aligning with the ideological aims of today’s pseudo-left. This combination of academia, NGOs, and media replaces class-based politics with humanitarian feelings, viewing imperialism as an unfortunate accident instead of a fundamental aspect of capitalism.

Luiselli’s novels and essays are powerful, yet they often become part of this humanitarian drama. They are celebrated for their empathy, lyrical portrayal of suffering, and critique of bureaucratic inhumanity. However, the qualities that appeal to liberal audiences also make them politically safe. The migrant is depicted as a victim of administrative mistakes, not as a worker driven out by imperialist violence. The border is seen as a moral dilemma rather than a tool for global class control. The story encourages compassion rather than confrontation.

This is exactly how the pseudo-left exploits migrant stories: as emotional currency. Migrants serve as symbols enabling institutions to showcase virtue, academics to amass cultural capital, and media outlets to project moral seriousness. The root causes of displacement — such as war, extraction, and political instability — are replaced by a sentimental emphasis on personal suffering. This creates a politics of pity that flatters the liberal conscience while maintaining the imperialist system.

Luiselli’s work acts as a mirror in this context, reflecting the pseudo-left’s preference for narratives that are politically provocative yet not threatening, critical but not revolutionary, emotionally impactful yet avoiding structural critique. Her writing reveals genuine violence, but how the pseudo-left receives it turns that violence into a spectacle for consumption.

A truly impactful novel about the migrant crisis should go beyond Lost Children Archive by depicting migrants as historical agents rather than mere symbols, and presenting ordinary Americans as possible allies rather than barriers. It ought to situate the crisis within the broader context of global capitalism, recognising the working class as the only force capable of ending mass detention and deportation. Such a novel would frame the crisis as a political issue to confront rather than solely a moral concern to observe. It demands an artistic perspective aligned with the international working class, rather than the professional-managerial class.

Sources and Bibliography

I. Political Economy of Culture and Literature

  • Adorno, Theodor W. Aesthetic Theory. Routledge, 1997.
  • Adorno, Theodor W., and Max Horkheimer. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford University Press, 2002.
  • Benjamin, Walter. The Author as Producer. In Selected Writings, Volume 2. Harvard University Press, 1999.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford University Press, 1996.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press, 1984.
  • Eagleton, Terry. The Function of Criticism. Verso, 2005.
  • Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell, 2008.
  • Williams, Raymond. Culture and Society. Columbia University Press, 1983.
  • Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford University Press, 1977.

II. Class Analysis and the Professional‑Managerial Class

  • Ehrenreich, Barbara, and John Ehrenreich. “The Professional‑Managerial Class.” Radical America, vol. 11, no. 3, 1977.
  • Fraser, Nancy. The Old Is Dying, and the New Cannot Be Born. Verso, 2019.
  • Sennett, Richard, and Jonathan Cobb. The Hidden Injuries of Class. Vintage, 1993.
  • Wright, Erik Olin. Class Counts. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
  • Wright, Erik Olin. Understanding Class. Verso, 2015.
  • Reed, Adolph. “The Limits of Anti‑Racism.” Left Business Observer, 2009.
  • Reed, Adolph. Class Notes: Posing as Politics and Other Thoughts on the American Scene. New Press, 2000.

III. Contemporary American Fiction, MFA Culture, and Literary Institutions

  • McGurl, Mark. The Program Era: Postwar Fiction and the Rise of Creative Writing. Harvard University Press, 2009.
  • McGurl, Mark. “Everything and Less: Fiction in the Age of Amazon.” Modern Language Quarterly, 2018.
  • Guillory, John. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. University of Chicago Press, 1993.
  • Graeber, David. Bullshit Jobs. Simon & Schuster, 2018.
  • Harbach, Chad. MFA vs NYC: The Two Cultures of American Fiction. FSG Originals, 2014.
  • Sinykin, Dan. Big Fiction: How Conglomeration Changed the Publishing Industry and American Literature. Columbia University Press, 2023.
  • Sinykin, Dan. “The Conglomerate Era.” Post45, 2020.
  • Lutz, Tom. Doing Nothing: A History of Loafers, Loungers, Slackers, and Bums in America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006.
  • Guillory, John. “How the Humanities Survived.” Critical Inquiry, 2021.

IV. Migration, Imperialism, and U.S. Border Policy

  • Luiselli, Valeria. Tell Me How It Ends: An Essay in Forty Questions. Coffee House Press, 2017.
  • Luiselli, Valeria. Lost Children Archive. Knopf, 2019.
  • Gilman, Nils. Mandarins of the Future: Modernisation Theory in Cold War America. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.
  • Grandin, Greg. The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America. Metropolitan Books, 2019.
  • Hagan, Jacqueline, et al. Skills of the “Unskilled”: Work and Mobility among Mexican Migrants. University of California Press, 2015.
  • Massey, Douglas S., et al. Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration. Russell Sage Foundation, 2002.
  • Menjívar, Cecilia, and Leisy Abrego. “Legal Violence: Immigration Law and the Lives of Central American Immigrants.” American Journal of Sociology, 2012.
  • U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Immigration Detention: Progress and Challenges in DHS’s Efforts to Improve Conditions. GAO‑20‑385, 2020.
  • Human Rights Watch. US: Family Separation Harming Children, Families. HRW Report, 2018.

V. WSWS Arts Criticism and Political Analysis

(These are not copyrighted articles reproduced in full; they are citations to publicly available WSWS pieces.)

  • Walsh, David. “The Crisis of American Culture and the Tasks of the Working Class.” World Socialist Web Site, 2018.
  • Walsh, David. “Art and Social Life: A Marxist Perspective.” WSWS, 2016.
  • English, Sandy. “The American Dirt Controversy and the Politics of Representation.” WSWS, 2020.
  • Brenner, Patrick. “The Working Class and the Struggle Against Xenophobia.” WSWS, 2019.
  • Greider, Nick. “The Social Crisis in America and the Failure of Contemporary Fiction.” WSWS, 2021.
  • North, David. The Crisis of American Democracy. Mehring Books, 2020.
  • Kishore, Joseph. “The Political Economy of the Trump Administration’s Immigration Policies.” WSWS, 2019.

VI. Additional Theoretical and Historical Context

  • Anderson, Perry. Considerations on Western Marxism. Verso, 1976.
  • Anderson, Perry. The Origins of Postmodernity. Verso, 1998.
  • Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press, 2005.
  • Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity. Blackwell, 1989.
  • Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Verso, 1991.
  • Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious. Cornell University Press, 1981.
  • Lukács, Georg. History and Class Consciousness. MIT Press, 1971.
  • Lukács, Georg. The Meaning of Contemporary Realism. Merlin Press, 1963.

A Brothel, a Mob and a Monarchy: Holland’s Leaguer and the Class Relations of Early Stuart England

On Shrove Tuesday, February 22, 1631, a group of London apprentices crossed the Thames in a rush toward a fortified estate in Southwark. Their goal was Holland’s Leaguer, London’s most exclusive brothel, operated for nearly thirty years by the fierce Bess Holland. Though the house withstood the attack—its drawbridge remained intact, and the moat proved effective—the event is more than just a colourful tale. It offers a vivid glimpse into early Stuart class society, highlighting moments where the tensions around labour, gender, government authority, and elite hypocrisy were temporarily laid bare.

Viewing Holland’s Leaguer solely as bawdy London folklore overlooks its deeper importance. It functioned as a hub within the growing capitalist economy, where displaced women sold their labour to elite men, and where the monarchy engaged in activities it publicly denounced. Additionally, it was a place where the frustration of exploited youth was diverted from its real cause. On a small scale, the siege of Holland’s Leaguer exemplifies the social tensions that eventually led to civil war a decade later.

The Liberty of the Clink: A State‑Sanctioned Economy of Vice

Holland’s Leaguer was located within the Liberty of the Clink, an area intentionally separated from the City’s jurisdiction. Bankside’s theatres, bear-baiting pits, taverns, and brothels thrived not due to lax enforcement but because the law was purposefully structured to overlook those activities in that zone. The Clink functioned as a device for managing contradictions: it was a district where “vice” could be isolated, taxed, and enjoyed by the elites without threatening the City’s moral image.

This setup wasn’t hypocrisy in a simple sense; it was built into the system. The Crown and the aristocracy needed places where their desires could be fulfilled without threatening the appearance of moral authority. Since theatres and brothels were highly profitable, socially significant, and deeply rooted in elite culture, they couldn’t be abolished. Instead, they were physically separated—moved across the river, out of sight but still accessible.

Holland’s Leaguer itself was a capitalist enterprise avant la lettre. Its exclusivity — fine linen, modern sanitation, controlled access — mirrored the emerging logic of commodification. Sex was not merely sold; it was curated. The clientele included wealthy courtiers, foreign visitors, and, by later report, King James I and his favourite, Buckingham. The same monarchy that periodically ordered the brothel’s closure was among its most valued patrons.

This episode reveals the first contradiction: a ruling class that criminalised people with low incomes for the very desires it enjoyed openly, and that regarded the women working in such houses as disposable labour rather than as individuals entitled to legal protection.

The apprentices who attacked Holland’s Leaguer were not moral crusaders. They were young workers bound by indenture, denied wages, poorly fed, and subject to the arbitrary authority of masters who controlled nearly every hour of their lives. Their conditions were closer to coerced labour than to the free wage work celebrated in English political mythology.

Shrove Tuesday served as a safety valve: a single day when the built-up frustration of youthful repression could be released. Importantly, violence was allowed — often encouraged — provided it was aimed at safe targets. Places like brothels, theatres, and taverns were considered acceptable outlets for anger; in contrast, merchants, guildmasters, and the government were absent. This exemplifies a typical class society dynamic where horizontal violence among exploited groups replaces confrontation with those in power. The apprentices targeted visible victims—sex workers, who also suffered displacement—instead of challenging the property systems causing suffering for both groups.

The apprentices were still in the process of forming a distinct class. Their common living situations, collective grievances, and occasional street violence helped develop a proto-political identity. While not revolutionary yet, they were becoming less willing to accept their assigned roles. A decade later, they would join the crowds that expelled Charles I from London. The 1631 riot wasn’t a revolutionary act, but it served as a rehearsal for one.

Sex Workers and the Gendered Labour Regime of Early‑Modern London

The women of Holland’s Leaguer were unfairly portrayed as morally ‘fallen’ by Puritan pamphlets. In fact, they were victims of a swiftly changing labour market caused by enclosure, falling rural wages, and the loss of traditional rights, which drove many to London. There, women encountered obstacles to joining guilds and often had to settle for jobs like domestic service, laundry, nursing, hawking, or fringe piecework. Sex work was not a moral failing but a survival strategy—an economic necessity to cope with a city that systematically undervalued female labour.

Brothels such as Holland’s Leaguer were not anomalies but integral parts of early-modern capitalism: venues where gendered labour exploitation was focused, commodified, and controlled for elite audiences. The apprentices’ assault on the brothel was therefore not a clash between virtue and vice but between two exploited groups, with their conflict aligning with the interests of the ruling class.

Holland’s Leaguer and the Historiography of Proto‑Proletarian Consciousness

The 1631 destruction of Holland’s Leaguer is more than just a striking event in London’s social past. It is central to a significant historiographical debate about when and how the English working classes started to develop a shared political awareness. Scholars like Christopher Hill, Brian Manning, Barry Reay, and Buchanan Sharp present perspectives that interpret the siege not as a mere rumour but as a key moment in the gradual emergence of a proto-proletariat in early Stuart England.

Hill: Apprentices as a Semi‑Proletarian Class

Hill’s work remains foundational. In The World Turned Upside Down and The Century of Revolution, he argued that apprentices were a transitional class: economically indispensable, politically subordinate, and increasingly aware of the contradiction. Their periodic riots were not random explosions of youthful disorder but expressions of a class whose labour was expanding while its rights remained static.

Hill would see the attack on Holland’s Leaguer as a classic example of this dynamic. Apprentices acted collectively, outside the control of their masters, in a way that revealed both their grievances and their potential political agency. The riot was misdirected — aimed at sex workers rather than merchants or magistrates — but it demonstrated a capacity for mobilisation that would become decisive in the 1640s.

Manning: Popular Agency and the Coming Revolution

Brian Manning sharpened Hill’s insight by insisting on the political agency of “the middling and poorer sort.” For Manning, apprentices were not merely reactive; they were active participants in shaping the revolutionary crisis. Their street actions were early rehearsals for the mass demonstrations that would force Charles I out of London.

Manning’s emphasis on popular mobilisation helps us see Holland’s Leaguer as part of a continuum. The same social layer that attacked the brothel in 1631 would, a decade later, besiege Lambeth Palace, disrupt royal processions, and form the backbone of London’s revolutionary crowds. The riot was not revolutionary, but it belonged to the same repertoire of collective action.

Reay: Gender, Sexuality and Displaced Labour

Barry Reay’s work on sexuality and popular culture adds a crucial dimension. Reay shows that sex work in early‑modern London was not a moral aberration but a structural response to economic displacement. Women entered the trade because enclosure, falling wages and exclusion from guild labour left them few alternatives.

Reay’s analysis reframes Holland’s Leaguer as a site where two exploited groups — apprentices and sex workers — collided. Their antagonism was not natural but manufactured. Both were victims of early‑capitalist transformation; both were denied legal protection; both were indispensable to the functioning of London’s economy. Their conflict served the interests of the ruling class by preventing solidarity between exploited layers.

Sharpe: Ritualised Disorder and Social Control

Buchanan Sharp’s work on Shrove Tuesday riots shows how the authorities tolerated certain forms of disorder as a mechanism of social control. Apprentices were permitted to vent their frustrations so long as they targeted “safe” objects: brothels, theatres, taverns. Sharp’s analysis explains why the attack on Holland’s Leaguer was indulged while attacks on merchants or magistrates were not.

The riot thus reveals a key feature of early‑Stuart governance: the state managed popular anger by directing it sideways—horizontal violence substituted for vertical challenge.

A Microcosm of Class Formation

These historians collectively depict Holland’s Leaguer as a small-scale reflection of early Stuart social dynamics: Hill highlights apprentices as a semi-proletariat; Manning emphasises popular agency and political activism; Reay discusses gendered labour and economic shifts; and Sharpe considers ritualised disorder as a form of social control. The destruction of the brothel was significant; it revealed the tensions within early-modern capitalism—such as labour exploitation, gendered insecurity, elite hypocrisy, and misplaced popular rage. This event is not just part of London’s bawdy folklore but also a precursor to the English Revolution.

The State Intervenes: Coercion as the Final Arbiter

When Charles I ultimately commanded the closure of Holland’s Leaguer in December 1631, he relied on military force rather than moral persuasion. Soldiers, not magistrates, were dispatched to enforce his order. Bess Holland responded with resistance, raising the drawbridge to cause the first soldiers to fall into the moat, and her brothel workers dumped chamber pots over the troops below.

The siege endured for almost a month, serving as a display of state authority amid waning power. The Personal Rule had alienated many social groups, while financial measures eroded the monarchy’s legitimacy. Religious policies also sparked widespread discontent. In this climate, shutting down a brothel became a symbolic act—showing the King’s attempt to assert control in a society that was slipping beyond his reach.

The closure had no effect; Holland just moved. The economic factors behind brothels—poverty, gendered labour markets, and elite demand—stayed the same. The state only suppressed a symptom without addressing the root cause.

From Scandal to Spectacle: Commodifying the Crisis

In just a few weeks, Holland’s Leaguer shifted from a site of conflict to a cultural commodity. Ballads spread widely, and Nicholas Goodman’s pamphlet cast the siege as moral theatre. Shackerley Marmion’s play turned the event into entertainment aimed at the same social groups that had patronised the brothel. This swift shift to commodification is deliberate; it reflects how class society processes scandal: exploitative labour becomes entertainment, state violence turns into farce, and class tensions are repackaged as local colour. The ideological role is evident: spectacle masks underlying social structures. The social issues—gendered exploitation, elite hypocrisy, misplaced popular anger—that created Holland’s Leaguer are hidden behind storytelling and theatricality.

Holland’s Leaguer and the Coming Revolution

Viewing Holland’s Leaguer through a Marxist perspective, it serves as a microcosm of early-Stuart England’s impending crisis. The monarchy relies on coercion instead of consent. The working class becomes less willing to accept its social role. The ruling elite’s hypocrisy weakens its ideological authority. The cultural realm commodifies crises instead of resolving them. The destruction of the brothel exposes a society where class tensions intensify, ideological conflicts deepen, and social controls begin to weaken. The apprentices’ riot, while not revolutionary, hints at the instability that would eventually lead to civil war, regicide, and the temporary fall of the monarchy.

Conclusion: A Case Study in Class Society

Holland’s Leaguer should be remembered not just as a colourful episode in London’s bawdy history but as an example of how early-modern class society organised, controlled, profited from, and ultimately abandoned its poorest and most vulnerable labourers. It shows how public anger was directed at the wrong targets, how gendered labour was commodified for elite amusement, and how the state only intervened when elite interests were at risk. Its contradictions—economic, social, ideological—provide a revealing glimpse into the world that led to the English Revolution. Beneath the chaos of riot and siege, deeper systems of exploitation and resistance were at work, which within a decade would threaten the monarchy’s very foundation.

Sources and Bibliography

Primary Sources

  • Goodman, Nicholas. Holland’s Leaguer. London, 1632.
  • Marmion, Shackerley. Holland’s Leaguer: A Comedy. London, 1632.
  • Contemporary ballads on Holland’s Leaguer (British Library, Roxburghe Collection).
  • City of London Court Records, Shrove Tuesday disturbances (Guildhall Library Manuscripts).
  • The Liberty of the Clink administrative records (Southwark Local Studies Archive).

Secondary Sources

Christopher Hill

  • Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution, 1603–1714. London: Routledge, 1961.
  • Hill, Christopher. The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution. London: Penguin, 1972.
  • Hill, Christopher. Society and Puritanism in Pre‑Revolutionary England. London: Secker & Warburg, 1964.

Brian Manning

  • Manning, Brian. The English People and the English Revolution. London: Bookmarks, 1991.
  • Manning, Brian. Revolution and Counter‑Revolution in England, 1658–1660. London: Bookmarks, 2003.
  • Manning, Brian. The Far Left in the English Revolution. London: Bookmarks, 1971.

Barry Reay

  • Reay, Barry. Popular Cultures in England, 1550–1750. London: Longman, 1998.
  • Reay, Barry. The Last Rising of the Apprentices: London 1661. Stroud: Sutton, 1999.
  • Reay, Barry. Sexuality in Early Modern England. London: Routledge, 1998.

Buchanan Sharp

  • Sharp, Buchanan. In Contempt of All Authority: Rural Artisans and Riot in the West of England, 1586–1660. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.
  • Sharp, Buchanan. “Rituals of Riot: Popular Violence in Early Modern England.” Past & Present 130 (1991): 90–122.
  • Sharp, Buchanan. The English Riots of 1641. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Early‑Modern London, Sex Work, and Urban Labour

  • Griffiths, Paul. Lost Londons: Change, Crime and Control in the Capital City, 1550–1660. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
  • Griffiths, Paul. “The Structure of Prostitution in Elizabethan London.” Continuity and Change 8, no. 1 (1993): 39–63.
  • Ingram, Martin. Carnal Knowledge: Regulating Sex in England, 1470–1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
  • Archer, Ian. The Pursuit of Stability: Social Relations in Elizabethan London. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
  • Shoemaker, Robert. The London Mob: Violence and Disorder in Eighteenth‑Century England. London: Hambledon, 2004.
  • Stallybrass, Peter. The Politics and Poetics of Transgression. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986.

Theatres, Liberties, and the Bankside Economy

  • Dillon, Janette. Theatre, Court and City, 1595–1610: Drama and Social Space in London. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  • Gurr, Andrew. Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
  • Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare’s South Bank. London: Shakespeare’s Globe, 2019.

The English Revolution and Popular Politics

  • Underdown, David. Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
  • Kishlansky, Mark. A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603–1714. London: Penguin, 1996.
  • Fletcher, Anthony, and Peter Roberts (eds.). Religion, Politics and Society in Sixteenth‑Century England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Further Reading

  • Shoemaker, Robert. Gender in English Society, 1650–1850. London: Longman, 1998.
  • Capp, Bernard. The World of John Taylor the Water-Poet, 1578–1653. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
  • Slack, Paul. Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman, 1988.
  • Wrightson, Keith. Earthly Necessities: Economic Lives in Early Modern Britain. London: Penguin, 2000.
    • Beier, A.L. Masterless Men: The Vagrancy Problem in England 1560–1640. London: Methuen, 1985.
    Archival and Digital Resources
    • British Library, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
    • London Metropolitan Archives (LMA), Apprentice Registers.

Podcast Episode: A Life Measured Against the Fiction: On Steven Zipperstein’s Philip Roth: Stung

Pip: Philip Roth spent sixty years building a hall of mirrors to confuse biographers, and somehow biographers keep walking straight into it anyway.

Mara: freerein61 takes up that problem through Steven Zipperstein's new short biography of Roth — weighing what close literary reading can and cannot tell us about a writer whose fiction is inseparable from the social history that produced him.

Pip: So the question isn't just whether this biography is good. It's whether biography as a form is even equipped for the job.

Mara: Let's start with what Zipperstein's book actually does, and where it runs into trouble.

A Life Measured Against the Fiction: On Steven Zipperstein's Philip Roth: Stung by Life

Mara: The starting point here is a gap. Blake Bailey's authorized biography was withdrawn by its publisher in 2021 amid allegations against Bailey, leaving Roth without a major biographical account at exactly the moment his place in postwar American literature was being reconsidered.

Pip: Zipperstein's book steps into that silence — and takes a deliberately different approach. The post describes it as "shorter, more literary, and less focused on the grievances, affairs, and disputes that characterised Bailey's work."

Mara: The distinction matters because Roth's fiction was itself designed to defeat the Bailey method. As the post puts it: "Roth spent six decades constructing a hall of mirrors — Portnoy, Kepesh, Tarnopol, Zuckerman — designed precisely to frustrate any biographer who attempted to extract a stable 'real' Roth from the novels."

Pip: Bailey treated the fiction as a lightly disguised diary and flattened both. Zipperstein avoids that trap — but the post argues he steps into a different one.

Mara: Right. Reading Roth through his work risks replacing historical context with literary admiration. The post is direct about what gets lost: Roth's fiction documents a specific social trajectory — the American Jewish middle class moving from Newark tenements to suburbs, universities, and the culture industry.

Pip: Without that frame, his novels look like psychological curiosities rather than evidence of substantial social change. Which is a real cost.

Mara: Where Zipperstein does land well is on Roth's discipline and intellectual development — the post singles out his analysis of The Ghost Writer as a reflection on literary inheritance as genuinely insightful. And his treatment of Roth's relationship with American Jewish identity places the 1962 Yeshiva University confrontation and the accusations of self-hatred in their correct historical setting.

Pip: Goodbye, Columbus read not as personal confession but as pointed social satire aimed at a rising ethnic middle class worried about its reputation. That's the more useful lens.

Mara: The post then widens the frame considerably — Roth alongside Gunter Grass, Italo Calvino, Kingsley Amis, John Osborne. The argument is that the inward turn in Roth's fiction wasn't personal temperament; it was a pattern across the capitalist world as mass socialist politics declined and literary culture migrated into universities.

Pip: Portnoy's Complaint as international symptom. That's a sentence I did not expect to need today.

Mara: The post's conclusion is measured: "Stung by Life is a marked improvement on its predecessor: judicious, unsentimental, and written with an infectious love of Roth's sentences." But Roth's significance, the post insists, lies in his fiction being one of the clearest records of the narrowing of political imagination in postwar American life — and until a biography confronts that history directly, even the best will remain only a partial account.

Pip: The limitation Zipperstein runs into may not be his failure specifically — it may be what biography as a form can actually hold.


Mara: That tension between the literary and the historical doesn't resolve neatly — which is probably why Roth kept writing about it for six decades.

Pip: Next time, more from A Trumpet of Sedition on the ideas that don't fit cleanly inside any single form.

A Life Measured Against the Fiction: On Steven Zipperstein’s Philip Roth: Stung by Life

The withdrawal of Blake Bailey’s authorised biography of Philip Roth—by its publisher in 2021 amid allegations against Bailey—created an unusual silence around this major American writer. Despite its flaws, Bailey’s book was the result of years of archival work; its absence left Roth without a significant biography at a crucial moment when his role in postwar American literature was being reevaluated. Steven J. Zipperstein’s “Philip Roth: Stung by Life” offers a different approach: it’s shorter, more literary, and less focused on the grievances, affairs, and disputes that characterised Bailey’s work. This shift is, in many ways, welcome. However, it also highlights the limitations of biography when it relies mainly on close reading rather than on a broader understanding of the social context that shaped Roth and influenced his distinctive perspective.

Roth and the biographical problem of postwar American fiction

Zipperstein, a historian of Russian and American Jewish life, approaches Roth through the fiction rather than through the chronology of affairs, quarrels and grievances that dominated Bailey’s volume. This is a welcome shift. Roth spent six decades constructing a hall of mirrors—Portnoy, Kepesh, Tarnopol, Zuckerman—designed precisely to frustrate any biographer who attempted to extract a stable “real” Roth from the novels. Bailey’s method, which treated the fiction as a lightly disguised diary, flattened both the life and the work.

Zipperstein avoids this pitfall, but his alternative introduces another. To understand Roth “through his work” might risk replacing historical context with literary admiration. Roth was more than a skilled stylist interested in erotic humiliation and family ambivalence. His fiction documents a specific social group’s evolution: the American Jewish middle class shifting from immigrant tenements in Newark to careers, suburbs, universities, and the culture industry. This trajectory—characterised by upward mobility, deradicalisation, and integration into postwar American capitalism—is essential to Roth’s significance. Without this perspective, his novels might appear as psychological curiosities rather than evidence of substantial social change.

What Zipperstein sees clearly

The book’s strengths are evident in the author’s focus on Roth’s discipline, reading habits, and continual self-revision. Instead of listing Roth’s achievements, the author emphasises the writer’s intellectual development and the debates—whether with critics, the Jewish establishment, or his early works—that influenced his writing. The analysis of The Ghost Writer as a reflection on literary inheritance is insightful, and the author is honest enough to admit that not all of Roth’s books are successful. This approach, which avoids saint-like admiration, is refreshing.

Zipperstein’s treatment of Roth’s complex relationship with American Jewish identity is equally insightful. The 1962 Yeshiva University confrontation, the repeated accusations of “self-hatred,” and Roth’s critique of his community’s parochialism are placed in their correct historical setting. “Goodbye, Columbus” and Roth’s early stories are interpreted not as personal confessions but as pointed social satire—biting, unsettling, and aimed at a burgeoning ethnic middle class concerned with its reputation.

Where the biography—and Roth—encounter their limits

The challenge isn’t unique to Zipperstein; it stems from the historical context in which Roth and his peers wrote. Roth’s body of work reflects the end of New Deal liberalism, the rise and fall of the New Left, the Reagan years’ backlash, the illusions of the Clinton period, and the post-9/11 era. His novels embody these historical shifts—such as in ‘American Pastoral’, ‘I Married a Communist’, and ‘The Plot Against America’—but primarily analyse them through personal psychology and family narratives. For instance, McCarthyism’s political disaster is depicted as personal betrayal in ‘I Married a Communist,’ and the decline of industrial America is conveyed through the tragedy of a single family.

This narrowing was not unique to Roth. It reflected a broader shift among a generation of American writers whose political perspectives shrank as early 20th-century mass movements—the socialist press, the CIO, the Jewish labour left—either disintegrated or merged into other entities. The university and the culture industry took over as the primary guardians of literary culture. During this period, the novel grew more introspective, focusing on the psyche and domestic life. Roth’s talent thrived within this context, but these limitations nonetheless influenced him.

A biography that focuses mainly on close reading often shares similar limitations. While Zipperstein clearly highlights Roth’s main concerns, he seldom explores why American fiction from Roth’s time often simplifies complex historical events into personal stories like marriages, affairs, or psychoanalytic sessions. This creates a portrait that is detailed but lacks broader historical context.

Roth’s fiction does not exist in isolation but is closely linked to the wider ideological movement of postwar American capitalism. As the working class lost political power, radical traditions were either suppressed or absorbed, and the middle class became part of the managerial and professional classes; American literature moved away from trying to understand society as a whole. The focus shifted from large issues like class, exploitation, and history to stories about private life. Despite his talent, Roth was influenced by this environment. His novels vividly depict a consciousness that developed within a limited scope.

The international dimension: a shared contraction of literary horizons

Across the capitalist world, the postwar decades witnessed a profound narrowing of literary consciousness. Roth’s inward turn—toward the psyche, the family, the erotic life—has clear parallels in Europe.

Philip Roth and Günter Grass

Grass’s early works, notably The Tin Drum, arose from the aftermath of fascism and war. As West Germany found stability after the war, his fiction shifted towards allegory and personal recounting. Major political issues facing the German working class—such as rearmament, NATO membership, and radical movement suppression—became secondary to themes of inner guilt and national reflection. While Roth’s Newark is not directly comparable to Grass’s Danzig, both depict writers of great talent working within societies whose political scope was gradually narrowing.

Roth and Italo Calvino

Calvino’s journey—from the neorealist The Path to the Nest of Spiders to the metafictional If on a winter’s night a traveller—reflects the decline of the Italian left. As the PCI moved away from revolutionary politics and adapted to the postwar order, Calvino’s work shifted from social themes to the exploration of formal structures and philosophical ideas. Roth’s hall of mirrors offers a different aesthetic approach. Yet, it is driven by the same historical forces: the decline of mass socialist politics and the rise of intellectual life within universities and the culture industry.

Roth and the British postwar novel

In Britain, writers like Kingsley Amis and John Osborne captured the frustrations of a generation facing Labourism’s stagnation and the decline of working-class influence. Their fiction often shifted social conflicts into themes of personal disillusionment, sexual frustration, and domestic disputes. Similarly, Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint reflects this international trend: transforming political conflicts into psychological struggles. Across different countries, a clear pattern emerges. As the working class lost political power, radical traditions were suppressed or absorbed, and the middle class integrated into managerial and professional roles, literature moved away from portraying society as a whole. Instead, it focused on the dramas of private life. Roth excelled within this framework, but he could not escape it.

George Orwell and Roth

George Orwell and Philip Roth stand at opposite poles of 20th‑century literature, not because they contradict one another, but because each exposes a different axis of modern unfreedom. Orwell is the great anatomist of political illusion, the writer who understood with surgical clarity how power corrupts language and how corrupted language, in turn, corrupts thought. Roth is the great anatomist of personal illusion. This novelist understood that the modern subject is not crushed primarily by the state but by the fantasies, appetites, and self‑deceptions that constitute the American psyche. Orwell writes from the battlefield of ideology; Roth writes from the battlefield of identity. Both terrains are lethal.

Orwell’s writing serves as a moral tool—precise, cold, and straightforward. It is shaped by direct political experiences: imperial Burma, Wigan’s slums, and the Spanish trenches. His stories are not meant to escape but to diagnose. Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four go beyond just illustrating Stalinism; they serve as warnings about how power tends to turn into tyranny, how easily language can become a weapon, and how swiftly ordinary people can lose their independence. Orwell’s key point is that political oppression starts with linguistic corruption; once language is distorted, reality inevitably follows.

Roth’s writing, in contrast, bursts with psychological vitality—darkly humorous, sensual, introspective, and frequently self-critical. He aims not to critique the political system but to explore the self, thereby exposing the contradictions within American liberal ideology. Unlike Orwell’s Oceania, Roth’s America is a stage of desire, guilt, ambition, and myth. In works like Portnoy’s Complaint, American Pastoral, and The Human Stain, characters are shaped more by internal struggles and societal pressures than by Big Brother. Roth’s key insight is that the battle over identity begins long before politics come into play; the individual’s self-perception is often more distorted than the truth itself.

Where Orwell insists on moral clarity, Roth insists on psychological complexity. Orwell believes that truth can be defended; Roth believes that truth is always entangled with fantasy. Orwell’s nightmare is the boot stamping on a human face; Roth’s nightmare is the human face staring back from the mirror, unable to recognise itself. Orwell writes to preserve the possibility of collective decency; Roth writes to preserve the possibility of individual authenticity. Orwell’s enemy is the state; Roth’s enemy is the self—and the society that endlessly demands the self be something other than what it is.

Yet their projects converge in one crucial respect: both understand that modern life is a struggle against forces that seek to define us. For Orwell, those forces are external—propaganda, surveillance, authoritarianism. For Roth, they are internal—desire, shame, memory, identity. Orwell warns us how societies collapse into tyranny; Roth warns us how individuals collapse into incoherence. Together they map the full terrain of modern unfreedom: the political and the personal, the public lie and the private delusion.

A partial but valuable contribution

Stung by Life is a marked improvement on its predecessor: judicious, unsentimental, and written with an infectious love of Roth’s sentences. It restores critical distance without losing sympathy. Readers new to Roth will find in it a humane and intelligent guide.

But Roth’s significance lies not only in his literary achievement. His fiction is one of the clearest records of the political and cultural degeneration of postwar American capitalism, and of the transformation of a once‑radical immigrant milieu into a professional class reconciled to the terms of American life. Until a biography confronts that history directly, even the best of them will remain, in the end, only a partial account of the life and the world that shaped it.

The mechanism of deradicalisation. 

The deradicalisation of the American Jewish community was not a passive process; it was achieved through the systematic elimination of leftist influences from trade unions, universities, and cultural life during the Cold War—such as the Hollywood blacklist, the expulsion of Communists from the CIO, loyalty oaths, and FBI harassment. Roth’s family was not radical—his father was an insurance broker. Still, the environment he depicted in Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy’s Complaint had already been deradicalised by the time he started writing. The Patimkins in Goodbye, Columbus are not former socialists who lost their nerve; they are part of a rising ethnic middle class for whom socialism was never a genuine option. Roth’s satire reflects the outcomes of a historical defeat without directly illustrating the defeat itself. This is not a sign of cowardice; rather, it shows that the defeat had been firmly established before he even began his literary career.

The comparison with Mailer offers valuable insights. Andras Gyorgy’s 2009 essay on Mailer depicts a writer who maintained direct contact with the revolutionary left—through figures like Jean Malaquais and the Johnson-Forest tendency—and whose journey from Barbary Shore to An American Dream reflects a deliberate, self-aware regression. Mailer was aware of what he was forsaking. Roth, however, never had that to lose. His political perspective was rooted entirely within the postwar settlement, which makes his fiction particularly significant as a reflection: it illustrates the internal experience of narrowing, free from nostalgia or apology, as a fundamental aspect of life.

The main issue centres on the novel’s very structure. Traditionally, novels have focused on themes like marriage, coming-of-age stories, and family sagas. The key question is whether this form can evolve to include historical forces as real agents, not just background or triggers for personal narratives. Great 19th-century realists—Balzac, Tolstoy, George Eliot—partly achieved this because they wrote when the connection between individual destiny and social change was still evident in their stories. By the mid-20th century, however, influenced by the Cold War and diminished leftist influence, the American novel largely moved away from trying to portray society as a whole. Roth’s talent shone within this narrower scope; he didn’t reshape it. This isn’t criticism—it’s a way to contextualise him historically, which is a meaningful form of praise.

A minor point of contention is Zipperstein’s remark that he “rarely asks why American fiction of Roth’s time often simplifies historical forces into personal stories like marriages, affairs, or psychoanalytic sessions.’ This suggests that a more comprehensive biography would pursue this question. However, a biography focusing on a single writer, no matter how extensive, might not be suited to answering such questions. These inquiries belong to literary and social history, involving the broader transformation of American intellectual life post-war—such as the integration of literary culture into universities, the decline of the socialist press and popular front cultural institutions, and the Cold War’s influence on thought and writing. A biography attempting to cover these would risk losing its identity or becoming so socially oriented that its structure would break down. The limitation Zipperstein points out may not be a flaw in this biography but rather a limitation of biography itself when addressing a figure whose importance is fundamentally historical.

Stung by Life is a marked improvement on its predecessor: judicious, unsentimental, and written with an infectious love of Roth’s sentences. It restores critical distance without losing sympathy. Readers new to Roth will find in it a humane and intelligent guide.

But Roth’s significance lies not only in his literary achievement. His fiction is one of the clearest records we have of the narrowing of political imagination in postwar American life, and of the transformation of a once‑radical immigrant milieu into a professional class reconciled to the terms of American capitalism. Until a biography confronts that history directly, even the best of them will remain, in the end, only a partial account of the life and the world that shaped it.

This is not a demand that Zipperstein write a different book. It is a reminder that literary biography, however well executed, cannot substitute for a genuinely historical account of the culture that produced—and rewarded—a writer of Roth’s gifts while steadily constricting the imaginative space in which American fiction operated.

Sources and Bibliography

Primary Works by Philip Roth

  • Roth, Philip. Goodbye, Columbus and Five Short Stories. Houghton Mifflin, 1959.
  • Roth, Philip. Portnoy’s Complaint. Random House, 1969.
  • Roth, Philip. The Ghost Writer. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1979.
  • Roth, Philip. The Counterlife. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1986.
  • Roth, Philip. American Pastoral. Houghton Mifflin, 1997.
  • Roth, Philip. I Married a Communist. Houghton Mifflin, 1998.
  • Roth, Philip. The Human Stain. Houghton Mifflin, 2000.
  • Roth, Philip. The Plot Against America. Houghton Mifflin, 2004.

Biographies and Critical Studies

  • Zipperstein, Steven J. Philip Roth: Stung by Life. Yale University Press, 2025.
  • Bailey, Blake. Philip Roth: The Biography. W.W. Norton, 2021.
  • Bloom, Harold. Philip Roth. Chelsea House, 2003.
  • Royal, Derek. Philip Roth: New Perspectives on an American Author. Praeger, 2005.
  • Parrish, Timothy. The Cambridge Companion to Philip Roth. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  • Shostak, Debra. Philip Roth and the Zuckerman Books: The Making of a Storyworld. Oxford University Press, 2014.

American Jewish History and Postwar Social Context

  • Diner, Hasia. The Jews of the United States, 1654–2000. University of California Press, 2004.
  • Sachar, Howard. A History of the Jews in America. Vintage, 1993.
  • Seltzer, Robert. Jewish People, Jewish Thought: The Jewish Experience in History. Prentice Hall, 1980.
  • Wald, Alan. The New York Intellectuals: The Rise and Decline of the Anti‑Stalinist Left. University of North Carolina Press, 1987.
  • Wald, Alan. Exiles from a Future Time: The Forging of the Mid‑Twentieth‑Century Literary Left. University of North Carolina Press, 2002.
  • Buhle, Paul. From the Lower East Side to Hollywood: Jews in American Popular Culture. Verso, 2004.

Postwar American Capitalism and Cultural History

  • Brinkley, Alan. The End of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War. Vintage, 1996.
  • Fraser, Steve, and Gary Gerstle, eds. The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930–1980. Princeton University Press, 1989.
  • Gerstle, Gary. Liberty and Coercion: The Paradox of American Government. Princeton University Press, 2015.
  • Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcissism. Norton, 1979.
  • Denning, Michael. The Cultural Front: The Labouring of American Culture in the Twentieth Century. Verso, 1997.
  • Hobsbawm, Eric. The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991. Vintage, 1994.

International Comparisons: European Postwar Literature

Germany

  • Grass, Günter. The Tin Drum. 1959.
  • Hermand, Jost. Old Dreams of a New Reich: Völkisch Utopias and National Socialism. Indiana University Press, 1992.
  • Gilman, Sander. Jewish Self‑Hatred: Anti‑Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.

Italy

  • Calvino, Italo. The Path to the Nest of Spiders. 1947.
  • Calvino, Italo. If on a Winter’s Night a Traveller. 1979.
  • Rinaldi, Angelo. Calvino e la sinistra italiana. Einaudi, 1998.
  • Forgacs, David. Italian Culture in the Industrial Era, 1880–1980. Manchester University Press, 1990.

France

  • Sartre, Jean‑Paul. What Is Literature? 1947.
  • Beauvoir, Simone de. The Mandarins. 1954.
  • Robbe‑Grillet, Alain. For a New Novel: Essays on Fiction. 1963.
  • Judt, Tony. Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. Penguin, 2005.

Britain

  • Amis, Kingsley. Lucky Jim. 1954.
  • Osborne, John. Look Back in Anger. 1956.
  • Samuel, Raphael. The Lost World of British Communism. Verso, 2006.
  • Anderson, Perry. English Questions. Verso, 1992.

Marxist and Socialist Cultural Analysis

  • Trotsky, Leon. Literature and Revolution. 1924.
  • Trotsky, Leon. Problems of Everyday Life. 1923.
  • Mehring, Franz. Karl Marx: The Story of His Life. 1918.
  • Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Verso, 1991.
  • Eagleton, Terry. The Illusions of Postmodernism. Blackwell, 1996.
  • Eagleton, Terry. The Function of Criticism. Verso, 1984.
  • Anderson, Perry. Considerations on Western Marxism. Verso, 1976.

Historical Background: McCarthyism, the New Left, and Postwar Political Culture

  • Schrecker, Ellen. Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America. Princeton University Press, 1998.
  • Isserman, Maurice. If I Had a Hammer: The Death of the Old Left and the Birth of the New Left. Basic Books, 1987.
  • Marwick, Arthur. The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy, and the United States. Oxford University Press, 1998.
  • Gitlin, Todd. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage. Bantam, 1987.

Podcast Episode: The Yahoo Boys: A Portrait of Global Loneliness and the Criminality of Capitalis

Pip: When capitalism hollows out a country's economy and leaves millions with nothing, it turns out some of those millions get very good at the internet — and freerein61 has been paying close attention.

Mara: This episode follows a single, sprawling piece of analysis built around Carlos Barragán's book The Yahoo Boys — covering Nigerian cybercrime, structural adjustment, Western loneliness, and what the pseudo-left gets wrong about all of it. Let's start with the portrait itself: who the Yahoo Boys are and what actually produced them.

The Yahoo Boys: Capitalism's Surplus Population Goes Online

Pip: The central argument here is that Nigerian romance scammers are not a moral failure or a cultural quirk — they are a predictable output of a global economic system that deliberately destroyed the formal economy they were supposed to enter.

Mara: The book opens with something personal: Barragán's own mother, alone in Madrid, was deceived by a fake American soldier named "Brian." That starting point frames what follows, and the post draws the structural conclusion directly — "The Yahoo Boys are not anomalies but expected outcomes of IMF, World Bank, and multinational oil policies that have exploited Nigeria's resources and left millions unemployed and in poverty."

Pip: So the scam targeting his mother becomes the lens for understanding a generation. The upshot is that the infrastructure of exploitation runs in both directions — resources extracted from Nigeria, loneliness manufactured in the West, and a generation of young men positioned exactly at the intersection.

Mara: The numbers make that concrete. Nigeria's oil sector employs fewer than 65,000 direct workers in a country with a 70-million-strong workforce. Textile employment collapsed from 350,000 jobs to 25,000. Official youth unemployment sits at 27 percent, and over 100 million people live in poverty. The formal economy did not fail on its own — it was systematically dismantled.

Pip: And into that vacuum steps Tinder.

Mara: Exactly — the post names the platforms explicitly. Tinder, Instagram, Apple IDs, gift cards: these become, as the analysis puts it, "the only viable labour market." Barragán profiles four scammers — Biggy, Chibuike, Azeez, and Richie — with enough specificity that they register as people shaped by intolerable conditions rather than cartoon villains.

Pip: The most cited line in the book is apparently a market observation, not a punchline. "White men pay fast, but white women pay long" — that is a worker analyzing the emotional economies of the global North with genuine precision.

Mara: And the victims are not wealthy elites. They are pensioners, widows, and insecure workers — people whose own communities were dismantled by the same neoliberal policies that destroyed Nigeria's industrial base. The post is careful on this point: the scams do not redistribute wealth, they transfer suffering from one section of the global working class to another.

Pip: Which is why the pseudo-left's response to all of this turns out to matter quite a bit.

Mara: The post spends considerable time on that. Identity politics framing — "Black resistance," "hustle culture," "postcolonial survival" — obscures the class dynamics entirely. It allows critics to condemn "whiteness" while leaving IMF conditionalities, currency devaluations, and multinational oil extraction completely untouched. The scammers get cast as symbols rather than analyzed as products of structural adjustment.

Pip: And the victims get dismissed as privileged rather than recognized as people whose unions, communities, and social supports were also systematically stripped away.

Mara: The post's conclusion is that moral condemnation and police crackdowns address none of this. The Yahoo Boys are not the system's anomaly — they are its signal.

Mara: That signal points outward from Lagos to a worldwide pattern of surplus populations and broken social bonds — which is where the broader argument lands.


Pip: What stays with me is the gift card that travels from a victim in the U.S. through Nigerian middlemen to Chinese vendors — cybercrime as a fully integrated node in the global economy.

Mara: Barragán calls it a warning: when a system provides no future for its youth and commodifies human connection, the consequences are destabilizing everywhere. That framing doesn't go away when you close the book.

Podcast Episode: What the “Transition” Left Behind: On Joanna Elmy’s Born of Guilt

Pip: A novel about three generations of Bulgarian women, a debut that's been making waves since 2022, and a literary critic who apparently missed the entire point — freerein61 brings all of it to A Trumpet of Sedition, and somehow the most contested thing is what we call the 1990s.

Mara: That's the territory we're in today — a debut novel, the historical rupture it maps, and the critical framework that struggles to see what the novel is actually doing. Let's start with the novel itself and what the so-called transition left behind.

What the "Transition" Left Behind: On Joanna Elmy's Born of Guilt

Pip: The central question here is what it means to inherit guilt from a history you didn't make. Joanna Elmy's Born of Guilt follows three Bulgarian women across three eras — communist repression, the catastrophic 1990s, and labour migration to the United States — and the post asks whether the novel's fragmented structure is equal to the weight of that history.

Mara: The post frames the novel's formal ambition clearly. Elmy uses a multi-voiced, non-linear structure, and the review describes it as "thematic accumulation, revisiting wounds from different perspectives and times." That's not decorative — it's the argument: no single timeline can hold what these women experienced.

Pip: And the upshot is that the guilt of the title isn't personal pathology. It's a relay baton passed between women who each believed the catastrophe around them was somehow their own fault, when the actual causes were institutional and external.

Mara: The post is precise about what those causes were. Bulgaria's 1990s — what Western coverage called democratic transition — meant, in practice, austerity, mass unemployment, crime, and the collapse of collective infrastructure. Yana, the youngest of the three, is described as born "shortly after what the novel repeatedly refers to as the end of history," and she doesn't inherit freedom. She inherits her mother's and grandmother's accumulated social crisis.

Pip: Which is where the post's second target comes in — Mia Levitin's review of the novel, which the post treats as a case study in what liberal literary criticism does when it encounters politically specific suffering.

Mara: The post's argument is that Levitin's review is "polished, craft-focused, and largely silent on the novel's historical and social context." Domestic violence and addiction become universal dark themes; migration becomes a personal journey of self-discovery. The structural forces — IMF-directed privatisation, shock therapy, the labour-export economy that made an entire generation leave Bulgaria to survive — go unnamed.

Pip: Calling that a neutral omission is itself the ideological move, which is precisely the post's point. Silence on cause isn't apolitical; it's a position.

Mara: The post also engages seriously with the novel's own limits. Elmy renders the atmosphere of collapse — queues, austerity, structures failing — but the post notes that the economic devastation is "less frequently examined as a historical process with clear causes and beneficiaries." The novel stays close to inner life, which is a real artistic strength and also a real constraint for a reader wanting to understand the why.

Pip: So the novel is a beautifully observed record of symptoms. The post credits Elmy — the comparison to Gospodinov and Tokarczuk is earned — while holding open the question of what politically engaged fiction owes its historical material.

Mara: The closing point lands hard: Eva, Lily, and Yana did not create the circumstances that shaped their lives. The guilt the title names was manufactured elsewhere, by institutions and decisions that neither Levitin's review nor, quite, the novel itself names directly.

Pip: Which leaves the reader holding the question the novel raises but doesn't fully answer — and maybe that's exactly where criticism should begin.


Mara: What stays with me is the relay structure — each woman believing the damage was hers alone, when the source was always outside the family.

Pip: That's the work criticism is supposed to do: trace it back. Next time, more of that tracing.

The Nuremberg Women: Liberal Mythmaking and the Erasure of Fascism’s Class Roots

A review of Natalie Livingstone’s new book

Natalie Livingstone describes The Nuremberg Women as a “fresh” and “humanising” depiction of the Nuremberg Trials, highlighting eight women—including journalists, interpreters, witnesses, artists, and administrators—whose efforts, she claims, made the proceedings “more democratic” and contributed to the perception that “justice was served.” Nonetheless, the book aligns with contemporary liberal historiography, emphasising personal stories, moral judgments, and depoliticisation. It masks the underlying class conflicts of fascism and neglects the political limitations inherent in the trials.

Livingstone’s book aligns with a recent microhistorical genre that emphasises personal experience rather than broad historical causality, prioritising emotional immediacy over political clarity. This creates a narrative filled with anecdotes but potentially misleading regarding its historical and political significance.

The book has been thoroughly reviewed. Notably, Katja Hoyer’s critique in the TLS stands out from a political viewpoint. Her review of The Nuremberg Women exemplifies a refined form of liberal historiography—graceful and compassionate, yet ultimately evasive. It demonstrates a style that appeals to the reader’s moral instincts while subtly lacking the political and structural context of the event. By lauding Natalie Livingstone’s microhistory, Hoyer reflects a broader ideological pattern: replacing detailed analysis with narrative empathy and transforming structural violence into emotional spectacle. As a result, the review appears to enhance our understanding of Nuremberg but in fact limits it by depicting the women in the trials as moral witnesses rather than active participants in the postwar justice system.

Hoyer aims to humanise the Nuremberg Trials by highlighting women who typed transcripts, translated interrogations, and experienced the surreal environment of occupied Germany. While recognising the importance of reclaiming women’s labour, she does not view these women as part of a gendered labour system. Instead, she portrays them as emotional mediators—conscience bearers, moral stabilisers, and psychological interpreters. This approach is more sentimental than historical, disguising insight with emotion. The women were not merely moral spectators; they were integral to the bureaucratic machinery that facilitated the Allies’ legal theatre. Their work was organised, exploited, and instrumentalised, and reducing them to psychological witnesses ignores the conditions that made their roles necessary.

Nuremberg Without Politics

Hoyer’s review is most revealing in its omissions. The Nuremberg Trials were not simply a moral reckoning with fascism; they were also a geopolitical performance that legitimised the postwar order, a selective prosecution that spared the economic foundations of German imperialism, a mechanism for reintegrating former Nazis into the emerging Cold War state, and a legal spectacle that concealed the class forces behind fascism. Hoyer acknowledges none of this. Instead, she presents the trials as a psychological drama in ruined Germany, witnessed by women whose moral clarity offsets the defendants’ brutality.

This is the liberal fantasy: fascism appears as a moral aberration rather than a structural product of capitalist crisis. Hoyer’s praise for Livingstone’s narrative craft is revealing. She commends the book’s vivid scenes, reconstructed conversations, and psychological atmosphere, but narrative is never neutral. It organises meaning ideologically, privileging the exceptional over the typical, the visible over the structural, and the personal over the political. In Hoyer’s hands, microhistory becomes a way to avoid the larger question: what social forces produced fascism, and what political economy shaped its juridical aftermath? By centering individual women, Hoyer displaces the trials’ structural contradictions, replacing analysis with empathy and empathy with moral reassurance.

The Depoliticisation of Fascism

What is most troubling in Hoyer’s review is its understated depoliticisation of fascism. She presents the Nazi defendants as psychological monsters, the women as moral witnesses, and the trials as a cathartic encounter with evil. The framing is comforting, but historically misleading. Fascism was not a mental pathology; it was a class project, a violent defense of property relations amid capitalist crisis. The Nuremberg Trials did not dismantle that order; they purified its image, punishing the most visible criminals while leaving intact the structures that made their crimes possible. Hoyer cannot confront this because her method forecloses it: liberal humanism can describe the emotional aftermath of structural violence, but not explain its foundations.

Empathy cannot replace analysis. It is not enough to sympathise with the women of Nuremberg; we must examine the conditions that shaped their labour, the political forces that defined their roles, and the ideological purposes their presence served. Hoyer’s review offers emotional satisfaction while withholding historical understanding. It is an elegant evasion.

Katja Hoyer’s review exposes a broader weakness in contemporary historiography: the dominance of liberal sentiment over structural analysis. It presents history as moral reassurance rather than explanation, humanising power instead of scrutinising it. The women of Nuremberg deserve more than the role of emotional witnesses in a liberal morality play. They should be understood as workers, agents, and participants in one of the twentieth century’s most politically charged legal proceedings. To recover that reality, we must move beyond Hoyer’s humanist framing and confront the structural conditions her review leaves untouched.

The Personalisation of History

Livingstone presents the trials through the lives of eight women, including Erika Mann, Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier, Tatiana Stupnikova, Laura Knight, Ursula von Kardoff, Ingeborg Kálnoky, and two others whose roles are framed as morally or emotionally decisive. Their stories are rendered with sympathy and detail. Yet the book’s central claim—that these women’s “human” and “intimate” experiences disclose Nuremberg’s “true” meaning—rests on a false and politically reactionary premise.

Contrary to Livingstone’s account, the Nuremberg Trials were not a moral drama in which personal courage and emotional labour delivered justice. They were a legal response to a crisis of world capitalism, shaped by Allied geopolitical interests and the emerging Cold War. Politically selective and tightly constrained, they could not confront fascism’s social roots. By centering individual experience, Livingstone sidesteps the essential question: what social forces produced fascism, and why did Nuremberg fail to hold them accountable?

The Erasure of Capitalism’s Responsibility for Fascism

Livingstone’s narrative accepts the juridical fiction that fascism was the work of a handful of political criminals. Her focus on the Nazi defendants’ physical and psychological decline, as Erika Mann observed at Camp Ashcan, reinforces this myth. Descriptions of Göring, Streicher, and others as “gaunt,” “broken,” or “like wild beasts in a zoo” are treated as evidence of moral collapse, but this is trivia presented as historical insight. The condition of Nazi leaders in 1945 tells us nothing about the class forces that brought them to power. Fascism arose not from individual pathology, but from the crisis of German capitalism, the destruction of the workers’ movement, and the support of monopoly capital. The industrialists who financed and sustained Hitler—Krupp, Thyssen, and IG Farben—largely avoided serious punishment. Livingstone does not confront this because her framework obscures it. Nuremberg’s failure to indict capitalism was not incidental; it was the trials’ central political limitation, a reality her human-interest narrative conceals.

The Liberal Myth of “Democratic Justice”

Livingstone repeatedly argues that women’s participation made the trials “more democratic” and “more humane.” The claim is sentimental but politically hollow. Women interpreters, journalists, and artists did not alter the trials’ fundamental character, which was determined by the geopolitical aims of the United States and Britain as they moved toward confrontation with the Soviet Union.

Tatiana Stupnikova, the Russian interpreter, exemplifies this problem. Livingstone presents her labour as evidence of international cooperation and moral seriousness. Yet the emerging Cold War shaped every aspect of the trial, as the Allies disputed charges, evidence, and the scope of prosecution. Nuremberg was not a harmonious exercise in global justice, but a site of political conflict. By turning these tensions into background for personal drama, Livingstone reinforces the liberal myth of Nuremberg as a triumph of Western democratic values.

Laura Knight, the British war artist, allows Livingstone to aestheticise the trial. Knight’s paintings are presented as capturing the proceedings’ “humanity,” but this framing has an ideological function: it turns a legally constrained, politically shaped process into a cultural scene of moral reckoning. Art at Nuremberg did not uncover deeper truths; it helped construct the trial’s image as civilised, rational, and humane. Livingstone accepts that image without criticism.

Livingstone presents Ursula von Kardoff, the German journalist, as a symbol of the “new Germany”: a nation prepared to confront its past and embrace democracy. This distorts history. The German bourgeoisie was not remade after 1945; it was preserved. The class forces that supported Hitler were absorbed into the postwar order and realigned with the Western powers against the Soviet Union. Livingstone’s portrayal of Kardoff therefore aids the rehabilitation of the German ruling class by casting its postwar representatives as enlightened democrats.

Gender as Moral Category

Livingstone treats gender in liberal-essentialist terms, casting women as moral anchors, emotional mediators, and guardians of humanity. Their labour—as interpreters, witnesses, reporters, and carers—is presented as inherently humane and democratising. A Marxist analysis, by contrast, understands gender as a social relation rather than a moral category. The gendered labour at Nuremberg shaped the trial’s ideological presentation but did not overcome its political limits. Livingstone’s sentimental feminism humanises the proceedings while obscuring their structural constraints.The Nuremberg Women is polished and readable, but politically reactionary. By personalising history, moralising justice, aestheticising suffering, and erasing fascism’s class roots, Livingstone ultimately reinforces the dominant liberal narrative of the postwar order.

The book’s central claim—that the emotional labour and personal courage of eight women reveal Nuremberg’s “true” meaning—is untenable. Nuremberg can be understood only through a materialist analysis of the social forces that produced fascism and the political limits that shaped the trials.

The Poem and Its World: Labour, Ideology, and the International History of a Manuscript

Against the Heritage Myth

The British press’s enthusiastic celebration of a ninth-century copy of Caedmon’s Hymn found in Rome highlights the supposed ‘earliest English poem,’ heralded as the “birth of English literature’ and the “first voice of the nation.’ However, these assertions are not just surface-level claims; they are rooted in ideological perspectives. They tend to conceal the underlying material conditions of cultural creation, the class dynamics of early medieval England, and the international networks that facilitated manuscript circulation long before the rise of modern nation-states.

This article challenges that mythology by arguing that Caedmon’s Hymn should be seen not as a national origin story, but as a result of labour, church authority, and global exchange. Rooted in Marxist materialist historiography, it warrants a more comprehensive examination.

Caedmon and the Social Relations of Early Northumbria

Bede’s narrative situates Caedmon firmly within the labouring classes. He is described as “an agricultural labourer – a cowherd” who lacked the courtly skill of poetic recitation and withdrew from the feast in shame. This detail is not incidental. It reveals the class stratification of seventh‑century Northumbria, where poetic performance was an aristocratic cultural practice, inaccessible to those outside elite circles.

The miracle story—Caedmon’s dream-vision where he receives the divine gift of song—is a well-known example of ideological mystification. It turns a social marginalisation, such as a labourer being excluded from elite culture, into a religious story of divine intervention. However, behind this pious appearance lies a crucial material reality: the oldest surviving Old English poem was created by a worker.

This does not make the Hymn “proletarian literature.” As the document notes, its content reflects “the ideological dominance of the Church in early feudal England.” The Church monopolised literacy, manuscript production, and cultural transmission. The poem survives only because it is embedded within Latin ecclesiastical texts — “the vernacular breaks through, but only within the framework of ecclesiastical Latin.”

This is an important point. In early medieval Europe, the rise of vernacular literature was not a spontaneous expression of national identity but a controlled, clerically overseen process. The Church decided what was written, copied, and kept. Caedmon’s Hymn is therefore the result of effort, but it is also influenced by an ideological framework that shaped its form and content.

Manuscripts as Material Objects Under Capitalism

The manuscript’s history provides a condensed overview of cultural property amidst the evolution of capitalism. It traces its journey from a Benedictine abbey to private collectors and ultimately to the Italian state, with each transfer signifying a change in the social relations surrounding cultural artefacts. 

Monastic Production: The manuscript was produced at the Benedictine abbey of Nonantola, a feudal religious community where scribes created manuscripts as part of monastic work. These texts were not viewed as commodities but as instruments of church authority. Post-Dissolution Dispersal: After monastic institutions dissolved, the manuscripts entered private collections via collectors.

It is worth noting that Thomas Phillipps’s vast collection was “a form of nineteenth‑century cultural commodification.” Phillipps illustrates the bourgeois tendency to turn cultural heritage into private property. The manuscript from Phillipps travelled through various hands—first to Martin Bodmer, then to H.P. Kraus, a New York rare-books dealer. During this period, it became a commodity in the international art market, subject to capitalist speculation. Eventually, the manuscript was acquired by the Italian state. However, it remained “virtually unstudied” for fifty years afterwards. Its neglect reflects the austerity conditions of modern cultural institutions, where archival work depends on precarious labour and inconsistent funding.

The digitisation project that eventually made the manuscript accessible is part of a broader, uneven process of democratising archival access. But as the document notes, this process remains “contingent on the funding priorities of state institutions and the unpaid or precariously funded labour of scholars like Magnanti.” Even the most progressive developments in cultural access occur within the constraints of capitalist austerity.

International Cooperation vs Nationalist Mythology

The final section of the document exposes the irony of nationalist uses of Caedmon. The Hymn is routinely invoked as “the beginning of English poetry,” yet the earliest integrated copy was found in Rome, produced in an Italian scriptorium, and identified through collaboration between Irish and Italian scholars.

This fact alone challenges the nationalist story. The manuscript highlights the significance of the English vernacular in the ninth century. Still, it does so via the global networks of the medieval Church, rather than through isolated national growth. The Church was a transnational entity, with its scribes sharing texts across languages and regions.

The material history of culture has always been international, whatever nationalist mythologies later generations construct around it. This is a profoundly Marxist insight. Culture is not the property of nations but the product of human labour operating within global systems of exchange, power, and communication.

Historiographical Context

This argument aligns with a long-standing Marxist historiography tradition emphasising the material basis of cultural production. Scholars like Eric Hobsbawm, Rodney Hilton, and Christopher Hill have shown that cultural forms are inseparable from class relations and institutional structures. In early medieval England, this involves viewing the Church as both an ideological and an economic entity, monastic scriptoria as sites of labour, manuscripts as objects whose circulation indicates shifting property regimes, and vernacular literature as a product of clerical mediation rather than a sign of national awakening. The rediscovery of the Nonantola manuscript offers an opportunity to challenge nationalist narratives and reinforce a materialist view of cultural history.

Culture, Labour, and the World SystemCaedmon’s Hymn is more than just an old story; it exemplifies the Marxist view that culture is a social construct. A cowherd’s poem persists because ecclesiastical authorities protect it; a manuscript copied by monks becomes a commodity for bourgeois collectors; and a key text in English national mythology is only preserved through global cooperation. Challenging the illusions of heritage narratives, the manuscript’s history shows that culture belongs to humanity, not to nations or markets. Its preservation relies on often unseen labour — sometimes exploited — and its meaning can only be appreciated through a materialist analysis of the world that create