The chapter covers special bilinguals; that is, those who have both a regular and a unique relationship with their languages. Among them, one finds bilingual writers of literature who express their art in their first language, their second or third language, or even in both their languages. There are also those who make a living from their extensive knowledge and careful use of their languages such as interpreters, translators, second-language teachers, and so on. Others, such as airline pilots and traffic controllers, or foreign correspondents, do not have to reflect on the linguistic aspect of their languages as much but depend on them, as well as on specific skills, to do their jobs. And others still owe a lot to their language proficiency and bicultural abilities to assure their safety, such as sleeper agents. All share many similarities with regular bilinguals, but they are also characterized by a number of interesting differences. The author concentrates on the latter.

This chapter gives a presentation of writing and literacy in Norway from the first runic inscriptions until the present day, choosing certain phenomena and certain texts to exemplify the development. Where possible, the author has taken the viewpoint of the writers. The aspects discussed include the relationship between orthography and alphabets, the understanding of orthographic use in the light of reading preferences, and the importance of political ideas of nationality and democracy for the codification of the two written standards that are used today. Language-external factors had a major impact on the changes concerning writing in Norway. For example, the introduction of the Latin alphabet led to great changes in the runic literacy, and the Black Death caused a general decline in the learned literacy. Later, the political union between Denmark and Norway led to a common, Dano-Norwegian written language. Between 1750 and 1850 this common language was standardized, and variation was less noticeable in the sources. After 1850 a Norwegian Ausbau process started, and variation, with two standards and several dialects, became a trade mark of Norwegian writing, which it still is.

On and off the map of “the world republic of letters,” literary Beijing, from exotic configurations to multivalent self-portraits, has unfolded, historically and geopolitically, as an ancient capital of traditional China, a Republican city of new thoughts and everlasting memories, a fallen city under Japanese military control, a socialist capital of Maoist ideology, and a rejuvenated and cosmopolitan megacity in the post-Cold War era and the new millennium. This chapter situates Beijing writing in the intertwined contexts of Chinese literature and World Literature in terms of evidenced influences, implicit connections, and paralleled representations. The methods of imagining Beijing have formed in the multilayered city-texts by writers across different historical times, which entailed variegated genres, ideas and trends, places and spaces, emotions and materiality, and cultural chronotopes. Entangled with Beijing narratives created by authors across the globe, the city’s imageries in Chinese literature prompt intriguing dialogues, in both visible and invisible ways, with World Literature. Together, this tapestry of urban writing encodes and decodes Beijing as a real, imagined, mythical, metaphorical and semiotic city surviving barbarianism, exoticism, Orientalism, (mis)understanding, (over)interpretation, and (un)translatability.

The selection of literary, epigraphic, and papyrological sources presented in this chapter illustrates the key categories of courtier at the Roman imperial court, and the relationships of courtiers with each other and with the emperor. Categories of courtier include: the emperor’s friends (amici principis); his advisors; poets, writers, and other cultural figures; members of the imperial family; domestic workers; astrologers; the emperor’s sexual partners; and foreign royals. Various themes relating to the emperor’s relationships run through the sources, including: the tensions between ideals and realities; the competing claims of independence and subservience; the instability of court hierarchy; the operation of influence, brokerage, and patronage; the existence of power groups and factions at court; and the consequences of relationship breakdowns between emperors and courtiers.

Chapter 7 re-examines the ‘book-farming’ controversy of the late eighteenth century. It first highlights the precarious power of book-knowledge, which offered mastery to an educated landowning class, but was a poor substitute for experience. The analysis distinguishes between a weak and a strong critique of agricultural books. The weak critique expressed by authors themselves condemned an overly theoretical approach or the overly speculative ideas in books. The strong critique was expressed in the reported hostility of working farmers, which was fundamentally suspicious of the value of learning about farming from books and challenged the proclaimed authority of writers. It argues that the strong opposition to book-farming can only be understood by considering the balance of power within agricultural labour relations. Hostility to book-farming was a form of ‘everyday resistance’ to the subordination of customary knowledge and the use of books as tools of management in the running of estates and large farms.

While Don DeLillo is an Italian American and son of immigrants, his fiction often has an ambivalent relationship with his biographical detail. He does not claim to be, and is seldom interpreted as, an ethnic writer.

This chapter places DeLillo within the context of his contemporaries, but also examines his influence on the next generation of writers, examining what we are able to understand today about his literary legacy.

Discussing DeLillo's literary accomplishments, why different kinds of context matters to understanding the work, and setting up the book's sections and chapters.

This chapter gives an account of DeLillo’s working habits and disciplines – what he once called “a deep, very radical sense of habit” – and his theory of writing, most of which has been culled from direct interviews.

The chapter begins with a brief genealogy of new materialism and inquiry into the significance of the nonhuman stories entangled in the ethical, political, scientific, and theoretical complexities of the Anthropocene. It first explains the convergence of the new materialism(s) and environmental humanities on ecologically engaged collaborative thinking in responding to bioethical, socio-cultural, and scientific questions that arise from the challenges of Anthropocene. It then discusses how new materialism has espoused the postmodern and poststructuralist disclosure of the link between the dualistic conceptions of the world and the traditional realist systems of representation. The broad argument is that the significance of the agentic capacity of matter in producing layers of expressivity has undermined the established credo about storytelling being uniquely all too human. The “nonhuman story” is argued to mark an important shift in the foundational notions of narrative and storytelling. Material ecocriticism re-envisions narrative as the signifying agency of living matter or narrative agency. Material ecocriticism sees the world as a site of narrativity where narrative agencies – the building blocks of storied matter – demonstrate some degree of creative experience.

Chapter 5 continues the discussion of Chapter 4 through a consideration of the unfinished manuscript that Mary Wollstonecraft left behind at her death: The Wrongs of Women; or Maria. Under coverture, William Godwin owned Wollstonecraft’s writing during their brief marriage and after she died. Copyright law, as experienced by men and women, is discussed in relation to coverture. Wollstonecraft’s polemic in the novel, on the law of marriage, is discussed in relation to the working-class figure of Jemima, whose own account of the law focuses the next chapter.