{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025737265415549597, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0021447721179624667, 'mean_word_length': 4.942675159235669, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fears of Loss, Tears of Joy: Raun Raun Theatre and Its Role in the Construction of a National Culture in Papua New Guinea (review)

analysed in this third part offers further interpretation of a play analysed in the second part. At the end of the book, there appears, for the first time in English, the preface to The Blacks, which Genet wrote in 1955 but never published. Genet’s aesthetic theories are less well known than his theatrical work, and thus, it is interesting that, often, the most brilliant analyses of that theatrical work stem from considerations of Genet’s paradoxical and deeply original theoretical essays. For instance, Sartre’s Saint Genet develops an idea that Genet explored first in La Lettre à Leonor Fini [A Letter to Leonor Fini]: the artist has to aim to be holy. Similarly, Jacques Derrida’s Glas is divided into two columns, one dedicated to Genet and the other to Hegel; this divided form appeared earlier in Genet’s Ce qui est resté d’un Rembrandt déchiré en petits carrés bien réguliers et jeté aux chiottes [What Is Left of a Rembrandt Torn into Even Little Squares and Tossed into the Crapper], where Genet divides the page into two columns, one providing an analysis of Rembrandt’s paintings and the other a description of a trip in which Genet arrives intuitively at the conclusion that each humour is totally equal to the others. Profound analyses of these two divided texts, by Genet and Derrida, respectively, reveal the complex relationships between the meanings of the two sets of columns. Likewise, Lavery’s brilliant analysis of the political meanings of Genet’s late drama can be understood as paying homage to Genet’s conceptual precedents. Thus does Lavery become part of a unique school of scholars, including Derrida, whose theoretical work reflects mimetically and matches the complexity of Genet’s own theorizing.