Brian Castro's Fiction: The Seductive Play of Language By Bernade ...

Such attacks require qualification. On one level the beauty of Castro’s prose, the intricacies and twists in his plots, his questionable characterisation (does he or she actually exist?) and his obvious irony can all be appreciated by a reader with no knowledge of the deeper games he is playing. It cannot be denied, however, that reading Castro is much more fun if one gets more of the jokes. For that reason, this study sets out to trace much of the theoretical gaming that goes on in his novels. But a word of warning: in attempting to uncover aspects of his gaming this study may itself fall victim to Castro’s wit. As critic Peter Pierce signaled back in 1995, Castro seems to be ‘parrying—by parody—academic attempts to make sense of his novels’ (149).

The relationship between theory and fiction needs clarification because to suggest that Castro’s creative work is secondary to, or derivative of, literary theory is to do his writing a grave injustice. Again, I refer to Karen Barker’s excellent article, ‘The Artful Man: Theory and Authority in Brian Castro’s Fiction’, and interview, ‘Theory as Fireworks: An Interview with Brian Castro’, both of which examine closely the relationship between Castro’s fiction and his use of theory. In the interview, Castro employs the conceit of ‘theory as fireworks, evaporating under the show of its own sparks’ (241) to explain how theory informs his writing. He points out that as a creative writer he needs to be cognisant of ‘the creativity of theoretical knowledge’ (241). While that theoretical knowledge informs his writing, it does not dictate its direction. To continue his conceit, theory and, at times, theorists explode with a bang—and an attendant gasp—in his writing, but like fireworks, they dissipate leaving a trace of themselves within the larger experience of the event. Castro is interested in the ways in which language, in fiction and in theoretical discourse, assumes authority. Echoes of Pomeroy can be heard in Castro’s response to Barker’s question about his use of theory: