Imaginary Puissance: Historicizing “Setting” and Discourses of Control

Abstract

t his essay takes up a literary concept that is so familiar it might seem trite: the idea of setting . Over the last century or so, setting has migrated from a relatively new literary term that was introduced to high school and college students to a concept that is taught to beginner readers at the start of literacy education. (That has been the trajectory of the term in the United States, at least.) Taught to us at a very young age, setting has become so ingrained in our processing of narrative that we most likely take this awareness for granted. But as with most concepts that have become naturalized to the point of invisibility, setting is not value-neutral. The idea of setting emerges from a particular historical moment and discourse, and it carries forth certain assumptions — ideological, aesthetic, narratological — about the workings of story. A survey of educational materials about setting suggests that one of its implied values is stability, or a distinct sense of location and emplacement. We might consider, for example, this de fi nition from the online source Literary Devices: “ Setting is a literary device that allows the writer of a narrative to establish the time, location, and environment in which it takes place . . . . The setting of a narrative or story helps the reader picture clear and relevant details. In addition, setting enhances the development of a story ’ s plot and characters by providing a distinct background. ” 1 The modern concept of setting is about clarity of image in the mind ’ s eye. And it is not just that a story ’ s background is distinct in itself; there is an implied distinction between characters/agents and background/environment. Characters exist within a setting but are ontologically