| In addition to "pure" writers who are novelists or storytellers by trade, fiction addressing the conflict in Northern Ireland has been generated from all realms of society, including politicians, journalists, activists of various kinds, and some who could be called terrorists themselves. This dissertation examines the depiction of those who commit acts of violence in the fiction of this period as it pertains to the societal and political position of the writer. More specifically, it addresses the trends characterizing violence in the fiction overall and then breaks the fiction into categories based on the ideological inclinations of its authors, including literary writers (Dermot Healy, Jennifer Johnston, Colum McCann, Deirdre Madden, and William Trevor), journalists (Martin Dillon, Gavin Esler, and Jack Holland), and political commentators and nonfiction writers (Danny Morrison, Gerald Seymour, and Lionel Shriver). It then examines how terrorists on both sides of the sectarian divide are rendered, both by the writers who have avowed social responsibilities and by those who write for the sake of writing.;The conclusions are grounded in an examination of postcolonial theory, specifically the concepts outlined by Albert Memmi, Homi Bhabha, Declan Kiberd. In addition, Benedict Anderson and Stanley Fish's theories of community are used to define the audience for this fiction. A survey of several collections of interviews with former terrorists fleshes out a discussion of the existing stereotypes of these characters.;The study concludes that there are no categorical differences in the representations of violence according to the ethnicity, political affiliation, or class, but instead those differences exist based on the initial profession of the fiction writer. Trends in the depiction of violence are present within each category; the literary writers choose to portray their violent characters in a similar fashion, as do the nonfiction writers and journalists. In addition, all categories of writers successfully avoid the pitfall of succumbing completely to stereotypical representations of violent characters; instead, they present a very realistic evocation of the violent actor in this violent society. |
