Response:Queering Time Deanna K. Kreisel (bio) There was an extraordinarily strong throughline to the papers at the 2017 NAVSA Conference in Banff. Perhaps it was due partly to the conference theme, "Victorian Preserves," partly to the breathtaking natural setting, and partly to our political moment that many of the presentations clustered around environmental and ecocritical themes. This striking thematic coherence made the job of a "NAVSA scout" with ecocritical interests both easy and difficult: easy in the sense that one could almost choose three papers at random and make a strong case for their interconnection, and difficult in the sense that it was very hard to choose from among the many excellent presentations on offer.1 In the end I selected the three papers in this cluster particularly because of the ways they speak to each other about a topic that has become of central interest to environmentalist criticism: the problem of futurity. While Fredric Jameson may be right that "Time and Space are at war in a Homeric combat," for literary critics it's hardly a fair fight (698). Every few years literature scholars are exhorted to execute a dialectical do-si-do and supplement their predominant way of reading with the putatively missing term: to reinvigorate their work with fresh approaches drawn from, for example, the study of geography, architecture, urban landscapes, and domestic interiors, or from the study of factory time, geological history, evolutionary biology, or classic narratological theory. Yet as that theory—from the Russian formalists to the work of Gérard Genette and Paul Ricoeur—has long shown, narrative is [End Page 236] fundamentally structured by time, is inherently a chronological, not a spatial, phenomenon. For Ricoeur, for example, "time becomes human time to the extent that it is organized after the manner of a narrative; narrative, in turn, is meaningful to the extent that it portrays the features of temporal experience" (3). While Jameson may have announced the "end of temporality" back in 2003, he did so by way of lamenting the eclipsing of literature by other art forms: "the rise of the intellectual stock of architecture accompanied the decline of belles lettres like a lengthening shadow" (696). But in the realm of the literary, space doesn't stand a chance. It is with some ambivalence, then, that I ask the readers of this cluster of papers to attend to questions of temporality before the most recent spatial turn has even completed its circuit around the dance floor. But Time, for better or worse, has bullied its way back into the spotlight—thanks in part to the efflorescence of ecocriticism, whose political project is both urgent and time-bound (from the vast temporal scales of geological change to the focus on our collective dys/utopian future as a planet), and in part to the extraordinary richness of the recent "temporal turn" in queer theory (particularly the work of Lee Edelman, Valerie Rohy, Jose Muñoz, Claire Colebrook, and Elizabeth Freeman). Two strains of this latter turn are particularly salient to the papers gathered here: the well-established interrogation of reproductive futurity and the more recent critique, from a queer perspective, of the regimentation of time under modernity. Dana Luciano has termed "chronobiopolitics" (9) the orchestrations of time through which people come to feel part of a collective, and Elizabeth Freeman has coined the term "chrononormativity" to refer to "the use of time to organize individual human bodies toward maximum productivity" (3). While only two of the three papers in this cluster are explicitly about queerness, and only one is about ecocriticism in a narrow sense, all three papers take fresh, surprising, and generative looks at the phenomenal and phenomenological category of time in ways that I think ultimately bear on ecocritial concerns, and thus pull together a significant thematic sub-thread of an already beautifully coherent conference. In her paper, "Saving Time: Nineteenth-Century Time Travel and the Temporal Logic of Late Capitalism," Sarah C. Alexander examines late-Victorian time travel narratives that describe temporal paradoxes, wherein a character travels to the past and alters events in a way that then affects the past, present, and future. Alexander focuses on the 1891 novel...
Read full abstract