"We have a winner"

Yesterday I went to Long Beach where a couple of my friends have a house. Unfortunately it was Irishfest, I don't get it. I don't get festivals that celebrate being something. Its like we have to find something to celebrate all the time. And being there made me realize one thing, I'm even more proud that I'm not Irish. I mean come on, what kind of a nation almost goes extinct because there is a potato famine. Don't get me wrong, I love potatoes also. I like them fried,baked and sweet but to die because I can't have them? I think I would have been able to eat beef or any other meat product for the time being. Also they have the worst European accent. Only good thing that came out of Ireland is U2 and they suck now. Hey, the Irish did build the Titanic and look what happened to that.

But this isn't the point of the blog, At the Irishfest they had one of those stands where you can throw ping pong balls in fish bowls and win a gold fish. 2 dollars for 12 ping pong balls, which I think is a pretty good deal. So I'm throwing my ping pong balls and on my second to last one I get one it, but since the universe is against me, a little 7 yr old girl at the exact same time threw hers and she screamed and thought hers went in. I politely told her and her father that she was mistaken but she screaming like crazy, so my point didn't really come across. So they gave her my fish, but what made me mad was the fact that no one realized I made it in, not even her father, and I find that hard to believe. So now somewhere my fish is swimming in the bedroom of a 7 yr old girls room. Whatever, the fish will probably die soon and teach her a good lesson about death.

"Let me check the back."

I recently went shopping, I used to hate it, but now in some strange way it makes me feel important. I don't know. Anyway, I was looking for a tie, a narrow one. So I was in the store and they had about 4 different kinds of narrow ties. I liked one but there was a color I had in mind and they didn't have it, so I asked one of the workers if this was all the narrow ties they had. The lady said "Umm, I thought we had some more, let me check the back. Hold on one second." In my head, for the moment I actually thought there might be something "back there" and when she returned of course she said, "No, I'm sorry. This is all we have." I smiled and said thanks and then I thought to myself, when have I ever asked for something and the person said I'll go in the back and check and actually came back with it? Never. If they had it, it would be in the front. And then i started to think about when I worked in Sears selling treadmills, I would tell people all the time "I'll go back and check" knowing full well that it wasn't there but I just wanted to get away from them and sit in the back room and do nothing. I would literally sit in the corner of the storage room and stare at nothing for about 5 - 10 minutes and pretend I'm doing something. It just satisfies the customer and shows them that you tried. So the next time I go looking for something and it's not there, I'm going to ask someone if they can check the back and then leave before they return. Maybe I'll look from the outside and see if they try and find me in the store. I haven't decided yet if that's completely ridiculous, but I think it would be pretty funny to see.

Rage, Lions, Machines, and Mars

Another music installment, just recently purchased One Day As A Lion. The band consists of front man Zach De La Rocha from Rage Against The Machine and the drummer from Mars Volta, Jon Theodore (all rock stars spell their names differently). Anyway, the EP is only 5 songs but it's still awesome. Zach De La Rocha plays an organ that sounds like an electric guitar. It's pretty successful in sound, here is a clip from The Black Keys using the same type of instrument http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3r8qb1A_Fk . I would put one from One Day As A Lion, but there isn't any on the web from it. And since this is a two man band as well, it's the same type of effect. And plus it was awesome live -(I saw it). But if you like Rage Against The Machine, then you would def like this, it's raw and very political. And I'm not even into hard music, but for some reason I've always liked Rage and this is along the same lines. So if you have 8 dollars, might as well spend it on something you can listen to and ponder over for a few minutes.

Modern Guilt

I'm pretty sure no one is reading this and it will fade away into the infinite cyberspace. So I will write in this every once in a while when I'm bored. It will be filled with rants and just plain non-sense. And in most cases the grammar, spelling and sentence structure will be awful because I'm not going to go back and edit it.

Recently I just bought Beck's new album Modern Guilt, it's the follow up to The Information. (Which by the way was amazing, buy it if you have the chance.) Coming into this album i was a little skeptical because the 'famed' producer Danger Mouse was going to be in charge of this one. He is the producer of such bands as the Gorillaz (Their first two albums are awesome), The Good, The Bad, and The Queen, and Gnarles Barkley (not so much). But recently he just produced the latest album from one of my favorite bands The Black Keys and ruined it!!!! If anyone reads this, you should def check out The Black Keys.

So coming into Modern Guilt, I was a bit scared because I happen to be a pretty big Beck fan and like i said, I'm skeptical of Danger Mouse's previous work. I listened to the album through and I was a little disappointed after the first listen. But since the drive to Queens is about 30 minutes with no traffic, I continued to listen to it and it's really starting to grow. After the first listen I thought there was about 3 or 4 songs I liked, now after road work being done, rubber necking, and women being aloud to drive - I've gotten more time to listen to it and tracks 1-6,8,9 all sound awesome. So, for an album that has only 10 tracks I'd say it's pretty successful. It's no Kid A by any means but Beck ,who usually I can't tell what he is talking about most of the time, has lyrics that actually stick together for a whole song. It's a short album, only 33 minutes and most songs are from 2-3 minutes. But hey, it worked for The Beatles so why not Beck Hansen? It's got a type of psychedelic 60's drug feel to it, but then again I love that type of music and if you like it also check out - The Black Angels, real psychedelic, tons of drone machines.

That's it for now. I have to continue to my Spanish homework. Tell me this isn't ridiculous, I can't receive my degree in ENGLISH because I haven't fulfilled my SPANISH requirements. So now I have to take one Spanish in the summer and another next semester. Unbelievable.

"I follow the road, though I don't know where it ends." Neil Young - On The Beach

I am reading The Road by Cormac McCarthy, so far it's nothing to go crazy about. I was expecting something a little different after viewing No Country For Old Men, I guess I can say that it's pretty well done if I'm still reading 110 pages in and nothing has really happened yet. It basically consist so far of a fire being built on every page. What I'm curious about is what they are using for toilet paper, maybe at the end Mr.McCarthy will englighten us.

5.01.08

As I announced in class, you can rest content: there will be no more blogs through the end of the term. We'll be working on the final presentation of the Lear scenes (anyone who wasn't in class will need to be assigned a group Monday), so give some thought this weekend to what scene you might do, and under what auspices you might approach it.

Feminist Critique

I think that Shakespeare’s King Lear offers a very interesting analysis for a Feminist Critic. Shakespeare does not relegate his women to an intellectually inferior and meek position. Instead, his three princesses assume an active role in driving forth the drama of the play.
Consider Goneril’s cunning in quickly articulating false flattery and then devising a plan of purposeful neglect towards her father, which she proceeds to recommend her sister to follow. “Put on what weary negligence you please,” she advises her steward, “You and your fellows, Ill have it come to question.” Interestingly, Shakespeare places this early scene from the first act of the play, only after a similar deceptive occurrence on the part of a male character. Edmund, the illegitimate son of Gloucester, is cunningly orchestrating a scene that will make it appear as though his half brother, Edgar, is attempting to kill their father. This juxtaposition of the two deceptions lets the audience compare these male and female characters, and find the woman an intellectual equal!
Obviously, Cordelia’s holds remarkable, admirable, character integrity. In refusing to participate in her father’s foolish test of devotion, Shakespeare is establishing her as the play’s moral compass. Additionally, this central female is a focal force of the play.
Admittedly, Shakespeare’s women, seemingly necessarily, are all coupled with men. King Lear’s deceitful elder two daughters are married to men of substantial estates. Additionally, Cordelia immediately at in the first scene of King Lear is betrothed to the prince of France, her only remaining suitor after her dowry is revoked. Shakespeare is very nearly saying, that in order for Cordelia to assume her critically active role in this play, it is necessary that she be married! The strong female lead cannot stand-alone. The feminist critic has what to applaud in King Lear but it was obviously not a complete victory.

Cordelia

Women in Shakespeare haven’t always been given a fair shake. I’ve mentioned before about Kate in Taming of the Shrew and I’m sure we’re all familiar with the portrayal of Ophelia in Hamlet and Lady Macbeth in her husband’s eponymous play. Of course this isn’t across the board, the Bard’s written plenty of really great and really well developed women too but every one of them there’s two very poor examples of women.

It’s a little hard for me to pick exactly where Cordelia fits in on this scale but I feel it’s safe to say that’s she’s getting a raw deal here. Rather than being allowed to make up her own mind her father is railroading her into accepting his plans her future. This right here is the classic feminist argument, the central point of A Room of One’s Own, that the greatest inequality of men between men and women has been an inequality of choice. Now royals and people of power are infamous for pushing their children into a specific way of life that they’ve chosen for them but Cordelia being a woman she is given less option to rebel against Lear’s wishes. If Cordelia were a male she could have made a name on the field of battle or distinguished herself academically but those routes weren’t afforded to her and thus she is affected by the world with very little ability to have an effect on it.

CLASS ON MONDAY 4/28

Due to transportation/vacation issues, it looks like I won't be able to make it for class tomorrow. Let's just push everything to Wednesday--though keep on with the Lear, trying to get through it all by the week's end.

It Sucks Being Cordelia...

The Story of King Lear suggests a feminist thinking. When King Lear decides to give up his kingship to his 3 daughters, he wants to hear how much they love him. His two daughters giving into his game kiss up to him, flattering him by saying that they love him more than anything else in the world. His 3rd and youngest daughter Cordelia, who seems to love the most, announces that she does not have words to describe the love she has for her father. Her father wants to hear what she has to say and presses her but she confesses that she cannot “heave her heart into her mouth,” (I.i. 93-94). She states that she loves him as much as any daughter can love her father. She continues to attempt to justify what she says by saying, “Why have my sisters husbands, if they say they love you all?” (I.i. 102-103). However, the fact that Cordelia tries to protect herself, by giving into this trick of bending backwards for the highest male figure—she is instead revoked and punished. In response, King Lear gets angry, and takes the inheritance she was supposed to gain, and gives it to her two sisters who gave into the King’s request.
Scene 1 in Act 1 suggests that woman had very little power, and they must given into the men that they were surrounded with in order to keep their status and their inheritance. Without giving into the requests of the King, a woman is nothing.

Lear

I haven’t finished the entire play yet, but I’m assuming that this will play a big factor in how it all ends: Of Lear’s three daughters Cordelia seems to have a creepy kind of love for her father that surpasses the others. Both Regan and Goneril profess their love for their father in long-winded, gushing speeches, like “A love that makes breath poor, and speech unable,” to which Cordelia responds snidely in asides “Love, and be silent.” There is some sort of competition as to which one of them loves King Lear the most. Cordelia, with that creepy kind of love, says she will never get married like her sisters, and instead will give all her love to her father. “Why have my sisters husbands, if they say / They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed, / That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry / Half my love with him, half my care and duty: / Sure, I shall never marry like my sisters, / To love my father all.”

This seems primed for a negative feminist critique, but it also comes off a bit post-colonial. The overlapping of these two “schools” is a sense of servitude and inferiority. The women are supposed to appease the men, and the colonized appease the colonizer.

Then Kent enters and refers to Lear as his father as well, so it may just be that he is the King; that the King is the one who receives all the praise. But why? Because he is the one in power – post-colonialism – but he is in this power because of the system that is in place. This is far from communism, Marx wouldn’t be too happy with sucking up to Lear. He would have rather liked the way Kent got under Lear’s skin.

So, I can see a way to look at Lear from each of the different schools we studied. And, I think that’s because it is possible to do this with anything, any t.v. show, movie, novel, play, whatever. There is always going to be a way to look at things from a particular angle if you try. I think that looking at works in this way allows you to see things in a perspective you may not have before, or not wanted or had interest to. At some point it agitates me though.

Feminism and Dowry

While reading William Shakespeare’s King Lear, the various plot lines taking place create multiple layers in which to uncover theories we’ve recently come to know throughout the semester. But it’s the feminist perspective that is most prevalent in the story line, for it is the first interaction between the characters which sets all other events into place. For King Lear’s asking his daughters who loves him most, is so double edged that it results in his ultimate decline. His daughters themselves are unique and symbolize traits that aren’t very appealing. Between Gonerill’s and Regan’s plotting and ultimate abandonment of there father puts into place a kind of “evilness” associated with women. Although feminist theory is certainly visible there is also a kind of class struggle of sex and station within the play. As seen with Lear setting a dowry upon his daughter’s. There is the sense that these marriages aren’t about love but about alliance.

LOVE And LOYALTY

King Lear is a shakespare play that displayed everything horrible that could be imaginable by any one else that would have read this, would of wonder how could someone be so disloyal and the lies and jealousy that is shown throughout this play. Most of the focal point is that King lear is seeking to see who is the one of his daughters that honsetly love him the most and are loyal not only to him but to his court.
King lear is set on play games with his three daughters to test their admiration to their father, This is where i get a little confused because to me , natural love between a child and it's parents should be very easy to obtain with out a testing , no one person or thing should be able to allow them to take away from the relationship between father and child. Here's where i believe King Lear as a parent didnt understand that , it seemed more like he took his household and treated everyone as his servert looking for the trust and love , but his way of proving this was by lying and playing into so many tricks to make the ones that he was close to open up more and share their feelings toward him no matter what the cost
I didn't believe that it had a feminism move or post colonialist move but at the same point i didnt understand all of this play anyway.

There's no Bond like that of a Father and his Daughters.

From the moment the play starts, you can see an obvious role that femisims plays throught it. It starts with King Lear asking his three daughters to prove who loves him more, and the one he believes to love him the most will get the greatest share of his kingdom. This is sexits beyond the book, because if he had a son he would get everything no questions asked, btu since he doesn't have that choice he has to decide on another way to splt up his kingdom, and this is how he chooses to go about it. He could've did a lot of other things to spilt it, such as giving it all to the oldest daughter or spilting it evenly. But no King Lear wanted to feel powerful and as if he had control over his three daghters, so he decides to make them gravel at his feet. The two oldest, Regan and Goneril, are like putty in his hands. They begin to drool over him. But his yougnest daughter, Cordelia, tells him that she loves him as much as adaughter can love a father, but no more. He doesn't like her answer so he gives her nothing, while he spilts the rest between the two older sisters. I feel that this is absolutly appolling. It would be bad enough if a stranger made them gravel at their feet, but it's their own father! He is treating his own felsh and blood as is they are less than human, and honestly it's digusting. BUt I don't know what's worse him telling them to do it, or them doing it with a smile on their face. Cordelia stood up for what she believd in. She did say that she loved her father, beacuse she truely does. But she wasn't about to kiss the earth he walks on for some land. She believed her fatehr would understand where she was coming from, but obviously he didn't. In my opinion Cordelia is a true icon to feminism, she took her pride over money.

King Lear

King Lear is known as being a tragedy, and as I read this play for the second time I realized and understand why Shakespeare and its critics would say this . This play is filled with betrayal, jealousy, lies, and death .In the play King Lear devises a plan to see which of his three daughters love him most. Lear tells his daughters that he will divide his powers to them after they have pronounced their love for him. In act 1 scene 1 (95) Cordelia says” Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave /My heart into my mouth. /I love your majestyAccording to my bond; no more nor less.” In this scene Cordelia is basically letting her father know that her love for him is that of a daughter and that she can not love anymore or less. A couple of lines down she explains to him why she can only love him as a daughter should ,because half of her love is reserved for her husband . After this statement Lear banishes her from the castle with no dowry or any rights. Lear's other two daughters Goneril and Reagan tell him what he wants to hear, it is obvious that They are being false and insincere.
Gloucester and his two sons Edgar and Edmund, also have their share of problems. Edmund is the illegitimate son and is resented because of it, and plots against his father. He also manipulates his brother Edgar. At the end of this play all of the main characters have a tragic ending. A blind Gloucester dies, Reagan is poisoned and Goneril commits suicide. Cordelia is killed, Lear dies, and Edmund dies. In other words the last scene is about a whole lot of corpses, so how can King Lear not be a tragedy.

Genre of King Lear

Reading "King Lear" with the theory of genre in mind, many of Chandler's points are illuminated. The play is supposed to be a tragedy, however, what it meant to Shakespeare and what it means to our society has changed over time. For our society, we see tragedy as more connected to real life and deaths in huge quantities are seen as tragic. We are surrounded by so many things that evoke a feeling of extreme sadness. However, the characters in Shakespeare's plays, especially his tragedies that are defined by the main character dying or falling from a peak. His plays show a transition and stay true to the theory that genre is not fixed and can be defined by society. How we see a piece of literature remains open to interpretation depending on the time period itself, events going on and the individual.

Throughout "King Lear" there are so many ways of reading of it that would cater to all the schools of thought we have discussed in class. One that particularly stands out is the idea of power struggles that are similar to post colonialism. There is an idea of loss of power and those (such as King Lear) who are unfit to hold these positions of power. There is a shift of who holds the power and who gets to decide. For example, act 1 scene 1, during Goneril and Regan's plot, they talk of their father's inability to make rational decisions in his old age. "The best and soundest if his time hath been but rash. Then must we look from his age to receive not alone the imperfections of long-engraffed condition, but therewithal the unruly waywardness that infirm and choleric years bring with them" (lines 341-345). King Lear's daughters are not the only ones that plot to have a shift of power. Edmund, also wants to rule the kingdom to his legitimate brother Edgar and take the power from his father. Both children go through a process of extreme caution and thought in order to plan. These ideas mirror post colonialism because the children are not acting as proper children. They feel that power and using it is wasted among those it belongs to. It is being used unwisely and so must be taken into the hands of those who are better fit.

If King Lear can be seen as a country that has been colonized and has his power ripped away from him, than the feelings he express towards his daughters and his realization that he has no choice but to succumb to them. There is a feeling of hate and a not wanting to be around them or acknowledge them. As with Britain, many of those countries wanted nothing to with them after the effects of colonization. However, similarly with King Lear, there is a feeling of familial ties and a difficulty to let go entirely. In act 2 scene 4, King Lear's thoughts towards Goneril, "We'll no more meet, no more see one another. But yet thou are my flesh, my blood, my daughter, or rather a disease that's in my flesh, which I must needs call mine. Thou art a boil...in my corrupted blood" (254-258). Although it seems a stretch to find post colonial ideas within this play, the idea of power and the constant transfer to inexperienced hands seems to parallel the ideas.

Ambition

Reading King Lear from the beginning I got this notion of Post-Colonialism and specifically reading Conrad’s, Heart of Darkness. Through criticism there is a connection between Edmund having similar cravings as Kurtz’s Ivory expeditions. Edmund who plans to seize his father’s nobility and the wealth that comes with it. Kurtz, raiding the jungle all on his own developing this overwhelming greed for Ivory which shall be his and no one else’s. Kurtz becomes so absorbed over its value that he desists in thinking that the Ivory be shipped to the mother country. The point here is that both Kurtz and Edmund are disloyal to nobility.

Here’s some lines pages 52-53 from the (E-book printout) of Heart of Darkness:

Mr. Kurtz . . . He declared he would shoot me unless I gave him the ivory . . .When I had a chance I begged him to try and leave while there was time; I offered to go back with him. And he would say yes, and then he would remain; go off on another ivory hunt; disappear for weeks; forget himself amongst these people - - forget himself - - you know. “Why! He’s mad, ‘I said.

The Russian was explaining to me that it was only lately that Mr. Kurtz had come down to the river, bringing along with him all the fighting men of that lake tribe. He had been absent for several months - - getting himself adored, I suppose - - and had come down unexpectedly, with the intention to all appearance of making a raid either across the river or down stream. Evidently the appetite for more ivory had got the better of the - - what shall I say? - - less material aspirations.

“I am not disclosing any trade secrets. In fact the manager said afterwards that Mr. Kurtz’s methods had ruined the district. I have no opinion on that point, but I want you clearly to understand that there was nothing profitable in these heads being there. They only showed that Mr. Kurtz lacked restraint in the gratification of his various lusts, that there was something wanting in him - - some small matter which, when the pressing need arose, could not be found under his magnificent eloquence.”

Here’s a part from Act I Scene II where Edmund forge’s a letter under Edgar’s name. Edmund attempts to make his father, Gloucester believe that Edgar wants him dead and through result attain the wealth:

GLOUCESTER Reads
the world bitter to the best of our times; keeps
our fortunes from us till our oldness cannot relish
them. I begin to find an idle and fond bondage
in the oppression of aged tyranny; who sways, not 50
as it hath power, but as it is suffered. Come to
me, that of this I may speak more. If our father
would sleep till I waked him, you should half his
revenue for ever, and live the beloved of your
brother, EDGAR.' 55
Hum--conspiracy!--'Sleep till I waked him,--you
should enjoy half his revenue,'--My son Edgar!
Had he a hand to write this? a heart and brain
to breed it in?--When came this to you? who
brought it?

feminist reading of King Lear

“Come not between the dragon and his wrath,” King Lear exclaims angrily, when Kent tries to tell him that what he has decided upon his daughter, Cordelia, ordering her to cut family ties and leave is not just nor sensible a decision for him to make. King Lear is furious since his youngest daughter wouldn’t obey his wills, challenging himself with what he’d called, “pride,” in the act one, scene one. In patriarchal society, such as presented in the very work “King Lear,” Cordelia’s sincere heart towards her father is simply regarded as a source of her father’s wrath only because she wouldn’t obey her father’s will. What King Lear would want from her, that is, her duty as a daughter, is simply for her to find a husband and get married. Though Cordelia tries to convince her father of her intention and heart, she fails to do so, and it is as if her voice is muted against his father’s ears. It is to both Kent and France that her good cause is made known instead, while the King doesn’t change his mind about his daughter. They both acknowledge and insist that her heart is to be regarded for its goodness and thus be avoided unfair justification such as one that has been put upon her. What one can notice in this particular moment in King Lear is that a woman is shown to be obviously a person without much power or status to achieve anything out of her own wish, even if it means a good cause of any kind, and even if she may be a daughter of King. The word, “dowry” which is often used in this act one and scene one, seem to imply the sense that a woman is to be equipped or prepared with certain amount of wealth or its equivalency in order for her to have particular value as a potential bride for a man.

An interesting look at King Lear from a feminist perspective can be taken in Act I Scene III, the Duke of Albany's Palace. This scene consists mostly of Goneril's conversation with Oswald about the inequalities dealt to her and her sister by her father, King Lear. In this scene, Goneril also devises a course of action to take in response.
Goneril's biggest gripes that she expresses in this scene are his divisiveness and his intolerance for small misdeeds, while he lets his knights do whatever the hell they want. According to Goneril, "every hour He flashes into one gross crime or other, That sets us all at odds: I'll not endure it: His knights grow riotous, and himself upbraids us On every trifle." In her words, its clear to the reader that the king's actions of playing sister against sister is a major strain on the family relations. At the same time, her comparison to the king's men highlight her lowered status as a woman. While they can run around and "grow riotous," she is reprimanded for every minor infraction.
Goneril decides to give her father the cold shoulder to get back at him. It could be argued that she's fighting for equality with the men she compares herself to. She mentions that she'll write her sister to involve her in this effort at equality. It seems like this scene is a good one for feminist critics because almost all of the lines are a woman's. It gives the reader a good insight into how Shakespeare developed his female characters, and what assumptions are made about them by the author and the other characters. Such as Goneril's last line "prepare for dinner." Even after her whole speech about scheming against her father, she's relegated the domestic duty of reminding her husband that dinner is ready.

A Feminist's Perception

In the opening of act one scene one, I immediately catch sight of a feminist point of view. In this act, King Lear anticipates to divide his power and kingdom among his three daughters. “Demanding public professions of their lives.” Meaning sweet talking, and showering Lear with compliments. However, when Lear’s youngest daughter refuses, Lear takes her dowry away. A Feminist critic might assume that the female characters are portrayed to be inferior human beings in comparison to men, because it is illustrated that this man King Lear, has absolute power, and these three young women are told what to do, and expected to listen. This obligation that Lear expects from his daughters seem so natural, and are qualities expected from his daughters. In act one, scene one, a feminist critic could also conclude that men held the power in society. Act one, scene one, Cordelia admits that she is unhappy. The mistreatment she suffers, as a result of not gratifying her father like the other two sisters, causes her to feel miserable. Cordelia reveals that she only loves Lear “according to her bond. Her obligation pf child and father.” Her duties are listed, “to obey, love, and honor her father”. A Feminist critic would suppose that women were not given many opportunities to make choices on their own. A feminist critic would observe that Cordelia’s lacks independence. Although Cordelia is unhappy, in act one, scene one, the audience does not witness another alternative to Cordelia’s situation. Cordelia’s only option is to continue carrying out her responsibility, which is satisfy her father. Cordelia’s silence makes her motivations hard to understand, for example, her refusal to announce her love for her father at the beginning of the play.

a feminist reading of King Lear

A feminist literary critic would be interested in analyzing King Lear, particularly 1.1.190-1.1.276, the first scene in the play in which the king divides his land between his daughters. King Lear asks his daughters who loves him the most, and Regan and Goneril begin flattering him while his youngest daughter, Cordelia, refrains because she feels language is not adequate when it comes to conveying love. Lear becomes furious with her and strips her of her dowry. The rest of the scene is a discussion between various suitors and feels like an auction.

Cordelia’s entire value as a human being is degraded in this scene. King Lear says, “But now her price is fallen” (line 198). Women in this society are not treated as people. They are worth only the money that is attached to them and are thus a commodity. Burgundy will not take Cordelia’s hand in marriage. The King of France seems more righteous and to have a more feminist attitude when he says, “She herself is a dowry,” (243). He takes her hand and makes her Queen of France.

However, even this seemingly feminist moment falls short of being true freedom for women. As Virginia Woolf pointed out in “A Room of One’s Own” a women is not free so long as she does not have her own space and her own money. Cordelia is subjected to sharing her space and relying on her husband for her livelihood. Additionally, Cordelia is not actually given a choice in marrying France. At no point does he ask her for her own intentions, and even if Cordelia were asked, she would not be able to refuse because she could not create her own livelihood as a female in that society. France orders Cordelia to, “Bid farewell to your sisters” (269) illustrating Cordelia’s plight as a female, changing hands from one man, her father, to another, her husband. What makes Cordelia different than France, Burgundy, or Lear? Feminist theorist Simone de Beauvoir said, “One is not born a women, one becomes one.” This is exactly what happened to Cordelia in King Lear. A further analysis of the play would reveal more moments of interest to feminist literary critics, as women are consistently reduced to child-bearing vessels.

For 4.28

PLEASE NOTE: This morning (4.22) I returned via email the second drafts of your first essays. If you haven't gotten yours, please let me know immediately.

For Monday, we'll dabble a little in psychoanalytic theory rather than deal with it extensively. Please read the excerpt from Sigmund Freud's Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis in Modern Literary Theory, and the relevant pages in the introduction to that section, if you haven't done so already.

In addition, read at least half of King Lear over the break. Be sure to read at least the first two, if not three, acts of the play. We'll be dealing with Lear through all the critical lenses we've covered this term: Marxism, Feminism, Post-Colonialism, even Genre. For Monday, choose a specific scene or part of a scene from the play and try to begin explaining how a critic from one of these schools might deal with it in a 250 to 400 word blog.

And be sure to bring your texts to class--we'll be working with the Lear throughout the last weeks of the term, and you'll need the script.

Finally, as a test to see who reads the entirety of these entries and in the interest of sanity, let's push the due date for the second essay back to 3pm on Friday, May 2nd. Hope you all have an extraordinary break.

Racist??!?!?

Is it fair to judge a writer for the topic he chooses? Is a writer just writing what the world portrays or is he actually sharing in those thoughts? Am I homophobic if I write a book on homophobic acts? Is it fair to say that when he wrote a fictional story that he was really just trying to portray his racist thoughts onto the world... Probably not! I think that people need to not be so judgemental because it is not fair to create such anomosity towards Coetzee because of the things he writes. I believe that his writing is just showing the talent he has to get into his characters minds and show their thoughts wether it seems racist or not. As for his move to Australia, I think that it has nothing to do with his points of views. Maybe he justt wanted a change in scenarie, or maybe he just wanted to travel... People always like to judge people and throw ideas around that are not accurate becuase obviously Coetzee never commented on those alligations. Leave him alone... He is just a writer... And probably hates the fact that people are calling him racist or anything else. He is just making a living doing what what he does best...writing.

So long, and thanks for all the zen!

With each topic of discussion, whether it be genre, Marxism, feminism, or colonialism/post-colonialism, the focus seems to keep coming back to literature - What does this have to do with literature? In relation to Coetzee, as it was related to Conrad, what types of rights does an author have? How far is too far? Or, does a “too far” even exist?
I think that it is unfair to want to censor an author. The moment a thought becomes words on a page there is a separation between the author and his/her work, even if there is no separation, if the author is of the opinion he/she portrays in their work.
But, this is also true for the critic. If it is unfair to want to censor the author, that means you can not censor any critic either.
So, anyone can argue to any end that Coetzee’s book is racist, to any degree. That is their choice, their opinion. It is up to the individual to decide whether they agree or not. This is our choice. Read Disgrace and read the criticism and make up your own mind. Actually, take any novel or work of fiction and I’m sure there will be more than one unified opinion on it.
Disgrace “explored the unresolved tensions of the post-apartheid order.” Coetzee wrote with “An unsettling interweaving of realism and allegory, with biblical allusions and Dostoyevskian moral complexity.” Explored unresolved tensions by interweaving realism and allegory. Not “set out to solve” by writing “non-fiction.” He uses literary techniques and devices. Because Coetzee wrote a novel.

RACIST NO WAY!!!!

Coetzee new move to me wouldn't seem to be a strike towards him being a racist , neither would his writing. to me most writers tend to focus on the things that are at hand for them rather than parade around the unknown and write. It seem like he has been attacked for alot of his works due the factor that he is a white man writing on and about Black Man issues. The question to me is how does that make him a racist, he writes only about things that people tend to run and act like never existed in the first place.
When reading Disgrace, Coetzee hit topics that are very true even in today world and time. I wonder is anyone would really call that work racial? It seems like if he was the black man and others would write on his social and economically ordeals would it be so bad , would the same type of labeling fall off of him and on to someone else.
His move was far from a racial move , and i don't believe that its an affect on his works at all, this man is very brill iant on how he in twines cultural views with today's problem whatever here or in South Africa,

always in grey

Coetzee’s book was in heated controversy, with people pouring out their own side of stories. In my mind, this is reminiscent of the book ‘heart of darkness.’ Both of the books, ‘disgrace’ and ‘heart of darkness,’ were considered as a racist book for exactly the same reason. Their description of black people reflected the sense in which whites viewed blacks as less humans. The fact that Coetzee rarely spoke about his move to Australia and his obtaining of citizenship there, and his refusal to an interview about the article in which much speculating has been mentioned regarding this very issue, makes the idea about him grow that he obviously doesn’t want to take a position in which he would be forced to answer to the question he doesn’t want to address. Be whoever you may be,- black person, literary person, and so on- the reason you may come up with in arguing that his book ‘disgrace’ is or is not a racist book, have fairness and justification in itself. I believe, at least, that what makes a book or an author a racist is largely subjective an issue. A form of art, whether it’s a painting or a piece of literature, can be always argued in both ways and it has been so.
As to the author’s responsibility regarding his or her view in the text, I’d say, concerning Coetzee, that he is just being aggressively loyal to what he (or Lurie) feels and experiences, and that would be his foremost responsibility as a writer. This is again, in a grey area because though there are clearly certain boundaries that have been set concerning what can be or cannot be printed on papers, these restrictions aren’t necessarily playing their roles. If they did, some of the books that we read nowadays wouldn’t be out in the market. I think it’s just a bunch of forces moving about, whether it’s regulations or opinions on what is or is not exactly a racist, trying to move against one another, trying to make one’s reason more absolute over the other.

Realistic not Racist

I found Coetzee’s comment on T.S Elliot’s emigration the most provoking thought in Rachel Donadio’s article “Out of South Africa”. Coetzee maintained, Elliot “defin[ed] nationality to suit himself and then us[ed] all of his accumulated cultural power to impose that definition on educated public”. Arguably, this describes Coetzee’s own strategy in his work “Disgrace”. As a native of South Africa, Coetzee was privy to the “unresolved tensions of the post-apartheid order” and his novel was an appropriate medium for exposing the reality. Therefore his work, and Coetzee himself should not be labeled Racist, but realistic.
This is not a case of the artist accompanying his controversial work with a diatribe defending it. I am alluding (having just discussed this movie in another class) to Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” or even, Michael Moore’s political agenda that he publicizes through his works. Coetzee is found guilty of bearing character resemblances to his racially conscious protagonist, David Lurie. Perhaps this is true, this is evidence only that the best fiction draws from reality. Coetzee could so clearly depict Lurie’s nature because it was based on his own. Nevertheless, this does not assume they share similar social outlooks as well.
Continuing similar allegations will make it dangerous for an author to introduce controversial issues in his work. The realm of fiction should shield an author from being held personally responsible for views expressed therein. So that even if Coetzee has achieved “representing as brutally as he can the white people’s perception of the post-apartheid black man” it should not be understood as his personal opinion towards the race. Instead, the reader can utilize it as for constructive criticism towards himself, not the author.

Coetzee a RACIST???????

According to the New York Times article, South Africa is referring to Coetzee’s novel Disgrace as being a racist novel. This article is basically describing Coetzee as being a racist, and that is the reason why he has moved from South Africa to Australia. He felt the country didn’t want him there due to the fact that his stories do not involve enough black people. I don’t feel that Coetzee is coming off as a racist. The novel Disgrace seems to be more about rape, acceptance, and yes maybe, towards the end of the story, racism. In a way I am still not sure if what happened to Lucy and David is in fact due to racism, but that is the way most people do view this.

I feel that people might be right in calling Coetzee’s book racist, due to what happens within the story. As for his other novels being racist, I would have no idea what to say about that, because I have never read any other novel of his, in that case, I would not be able to say.

The author’s responsibility when it comes to the views he brings forth in their text, would be to fight these views or at least confront the press about the situation. I feel that Coetzee did wrong by not confronting the press and just ignoring them, because it just goes to show that the press and everyone else’s speculations are true, about how the people view his novels as being racist, or view Coetzee himself as being racist.

Coetzee Disgraceful?

The New York Times article accusing Coetzee of being a racist is ridiculous, especially in instance of his work Disgrace. For throughout the novel even with a protagonist such as Laurie, there is an ever-present sense of Coetzee attempting to illustrate the aftermath of a postcolonial rule. Whether one would consider his lack of creating an African character as racism I fear what one would say if he were to. There is then the notion that by Coetzee moving to Australia in some way is interpreted as him “selling out”. For if that seems as relevant as if one were to move to Kansas they’d be considered a Kansan. This all surmises to the idea that an author must adhere to every group when he or she writes a novel.

Although one must agree an author has much to consider in the works they write, there must be the distinguishing factor that the work is there creation. Whether their views may be contrary to ones own doesn’t mean they’re wrong or should be accused of being racist. For there are meanings held in an authors work, that as we have seen while reading Disgrace, carry diverse perceptions which resonate with different people.

Pointing Fingers

So we’ve come back to these questions: Is a work racist? And if a work is racist does that mean that the writer is a racist?

I think there is enough evidence in the novel that supports the notion that David Lurie himself may harbor some racist sentiments and that many of the principle characters in the work may be guilty of the sort of “educated liberal” form of racism we’ve discussed before. Lurie’s presumptuous treatment of Soraya and in the way he speaks about Petrus both before and after the attack on the farm. I hold and have always held the belief that Lurie is in many ways an old style racist and were he in apartheid times he might not make such an effort to hide it. However this racism is another form of the elitism that we’ve seen him exhibit throughout the novel, he’s not a foaming at the mouth bigot because he thinks he’s better than black people because he thinks he’s better than everybody.

Still that’s not enough to paint the entire novel as a racist work. I think that in order to properly categorize any work as “racist” there has to be sense that this notion is being promoted and characterized as a proper and just mindset. This doesn’t appear anywhere in the work. There is some justification to Lurie’s treatment of Petrus because of his involvement in the attack on him and Lucy and even Ettinger’s more direct racism seems to borne out of a legitimate fear of losing his land to black farmers. But neither of these thinkings are promoted as the best way of life in the novel if anything both are seen as falsehoods and improper ways of viewing the world as a whole but for the situation these characters find themselves in it is their natural response.

After reading the article on Coetzee and finishing the novel, my opinion of Coetzee had remained the same. I don't know if you can call the novel racist but it definitely deals with race issues. But how can it not when the book takes place in Africa and it's about a white family? It would be unrealastic if race didn't play a part in the novel when they are the only white family in the area. But one of the reasons why I don't consider it a racist novel is that before the event of his daughter being raped, there is almost no mention of black people in a negative way. There is no "My people or put him in his place" type of talk until after the event happened. But from the article, they were arguing why it had to be black guys. But I ask, why not? Why wouldn't it have been black people when the majority of people that live there were black. Just because it was black on white doesn't mean it was a race crime. Or at least that's how I see it. If the novel had taken place in a white surburban area and a black girl had been raped by white kids, I would not ask why did it have to be the white kids that raped her but I would think, it makes sense being that the whole area is full of whites. I don't know, maybe I am being naive but I didn't read the novel as a racist one and if you only look at the novel as a racist one, you are missing out on the other aspects of the book.



I think authors in general have to be aware of what they are writing but in the same degree, it's fiction. They have to be aware of the audience that they are writing to but in the same time, books and stories in general that are controversial usually are some of the best works. I don't know, I don't think it is a racist novel but then again I think Do The Right Thing is one of the most racist films out there.

The Controversies of "Disgraced"

After reading Coetzee’s move to Australia New York times article it is now revealed that the author discovered the tensions of post-apartheid. Coetzee is also accessed of being a racist, as a result of his novel “Disgrace” Coetzee denies speaking to the press, or participating in any interviews. “Brutally representing the white peoples perception of the post-apartheid black man and, implying that in the new regime whites would loose their cards, their weapons, their property, their rights, and their dignity, while the white women would have to sleep with Barbaric Black Men.” This is demonstrated when Lucy and David, who were once the dominant whites in their neighborhood, were viciously attacked, by three black men. This attack ruined their lives, causing David and Lucy emotional, and physical distress. David and Lucy are therefore unable to communicate with each other, disagreeing on almost everything they talk about. A “Barbaric Black Man” forced himself on Lucy, impregnating her. Lucy chooses to have the child, a burden that she has accepted to live with. Petrus, on the other hand once looked upon as the uneducated African, who was not that important, has now gained some authority. Petrus has land, and has Lucy, a white female in the palm of his hands. This represents the whites “loosing their property, their rights and their dignity.” To this extent, one would have the opportunity to call Coetzee’s book racist. On the contrary, an authors responsibility when it comes to the views he or she brings forth in their text is to take into consideration the values of their audience

Expectations of Ficiton

Although Coetzee's, "Disgrace" does have undeniable undertones of post-colonialism and post-apartheid themes, we also have to remember as readers, that it is a work of fiction. The small difference in Coetzee writing a non-fiction novel, which he easily could have done while living in South Africa and having experiences first hand, he chose fiction and so allows the novel to be interpreted in many different ways depending on the reader. The historic background of a non-fiction novel and the purpose it holds to educate, does not allow for the abstraction of opinion and a concept such as racism would clearly be illustrated as opposed to subliminal. Therefore, although they not be seeing the book for what it is, (a chance every writer/novelist has to take) it would not be wrong to interpret the book as a racist novel.

As an author, there really is no clearly defined responsibility, especially when writing fiction. The only thing they can do is hope the story and ideas they create help people to think perhaps in a different way. Coetzee in particular seems to know that his responsibility as a white man writing in South Africa is to present the situation in a way where people can see it many different ways. He presents post-colonialism and racism (if that is what he is intending) in a way that makes the reader think of what the world has come to and presents new ideas that may not have necessarily arose when thinking about things like this. As author, perhaps their only responsibility is to open new ideas, such as guilt and identity and try to make things better than they may have been through literature. Even though there may be all these themes embedded within it, the purpose may not be to create a profile of the author himself. "Beyond that, some interpreted a subplot in “Disgrace” about an animal shelter where Lurie ministers to wounded dogs as a sign that the novelist cared more about animal rights than human rights." Although it may be there, it is not a responsibility of the author nor of Coetzee.

As the article "Out of Africa" points out, not every literary critic agrees with Coetzee's work and go as far as to say the book is a work of hatred and Coetzee is "accused of representing 'as brutally as he can the white people’s perception of the post-apartheid black man,' and of implying that in the new regime whites would 'lose their cards, their weapons, their property, their rights, their dignity,' while “the white women will have to sleep with the barbaric black men.” However, not every person will agree with saying that his work of a purely racist mind set. Perhaps by moving to Australia, it only meant that Coetzee could grow as a writer and begin to see his surroundings in a way as many authors attempt to instill in their readers. As the saying goes, "write what you know". Maybe South Africa acted as a lens for many of his novels and the change of location helped change that lens and expand his literary perspectives.

Authors can only hope that what they are writing and what is distributed to the public is making a difference. Of course there will be interpretations and those who do not agree, whether it is on the grounds of racism, feminist theory, queer theory or pure hatred. Art is open to this and as long as art has been created, it is subjective. As an author or a creator of any kind, there should be beauty within the work and not leave things worse than they were before they were introduced to the work.

Disgracefull Racist?

From the standpoint of the South African government, J.M. Coetzee's book, Disgrace, is racist literature. Coetzee, according to the government, represented, "as brutally as he can the white people’s perception of the post-apartheid black man." No morally whole characters are black, and none of the black characters are given the same development as the white characters of equal importance to the plot.
Does this make Disgrace a racist book? Just as it was possible to argue that Joseph Conrad's Marlow was the racist, and a caricature of racism, it's possible to explain Disgrace. Much of the book deals with David Lurie's thought process, and as liberal and enlightened as he likes to think he is, he is still a product of apartheid South Africa. Sure, he's no Ettinger, but one could argue that there is little difference between Ettinger's razor-wire fence and Lurie's racial isolation in his academic bubble. In fact, Ettinger's fence is more honest to its own racism. But just because the character is a racist doesn't mean the book is. Defenders of Disgrace laud its brutal honesty in dealing with the hard feelings that still linger in South Africa because of its racialized history.
Is Coetzee responsible for Lurie's covert racism? Should he be denounced as a racist? I don't think so. He is responsible as an author to tell a story, it doesn't necessarily have to be a story we like. The movie American History X comes to mind in this situation. Surely, the story of neo-Nazis is not an endearing one, and can certainly offend, but to label the producers, directors, actors, and writers racist because they had a part in producing this film is ridiculous. There are of course boundaries. An author shouldn't step too far into the field of fiction (or rather falsehood) when making a critique on the way we think. Walt and Meirsheimer's recent report on the Israel lobby often ran counter to factual evidence, and in doing so rightly offended a number of people.

Coetzee’s Disgrace has been accused of misrepresenting racial relations in South Africa by providing a very limited perspective of blacks, but calling the author a racist is a stretch of our rights as readers. Authors do have responsibility when it comes to views they bring forth in their texts, but racism in Disgrace comes across as an opening for discussion, not a doctrine the author asks readers to accept.

According to a New York Times article, the African National Congress accused Coetzee of “representing as brutally as he can the white people’s perception of the post-apartheid black man.” This argument has been voiced by several others. However, it has also been countered.

The African National Congress accused Coetzee of portraying post apartheid South Africa as a place where “whites lose their cards, their weapons, their property, their rights, their dignity” while “the white women will have to sleep with the barbaric black men.” This accusation is well founded in the novel’s protagonist’s daughter, Lucy, who is raped by three black men, impregnanted, and keeps the baby without pressing rape charges. She says, “Perhaps this is what I must learn to accept. To start again at ground level. With nothing…like a dog.” However, Lucy’s view is just one opinion in the face of readjustment which is occurring in post apartheid South Africa. The author is presenting it, perhaps even for readers to disagree with. Coetzee’s narrator does not hint that Lucy’s line of thinking is correct. Coetzee himself may see it as dangerous. Authors often present things to readers to bring them out into the open and let the readers pass judgment on it.

The other main accusation against Coetzee is that he fails to give voice to the black characters. Novelist Nadine Gordimer said that in Coetzee’s novel, “There is not one black person who is a real human being.” Chris van Wky says, “The white characters are fleshed out, the black evildoers are not.” I tend to agree with these thinkers to a certain extent. I feel I know much more about Lurie, Melanie, and the other white characters as individuals than I know about any black character. And what we do learn of black characters may be perceived as negative. For example, Petreus is a polygamist and a bit sexist, as revealed when he says he hopes his wife has a boy because “girls are expensive.” However, we do learn negative things about white characters, such as David Lurie’s rape of Melanie. While the narrator is most closely tied to Lurie, the attitude of the book still condemns him for the deed because of diction qualifiers such as “even” about Melanie even helping Lurie in the act, and the presentation of her “struggle.” In this way, the novel simply reveals truths. The reason the perspective is mostly white is probably because Coetzee himself is white and the novel examines post apartheid South Africa using a middle aged white man as the focal point.

Despite the evidence for Coetzee’s novel being racist, there are others who disagree. South African noveleist Damon Galgut said that Coetzee, “actually broke a taboo by speaking about it in those terms.” Relations in South Africa are complex and slippery, and Coetzee was just illustrating. Homi Bhabba calls Disgrace, “a work of open seems” and feels that the power lies in the ambiguity between Coetzee himself, the narrator, and David Lurie. I tend to agree and feel that Coetzee’s ambiguities and allegories serve to remove himself from the novel as much as possible. He is offering readers a snapshot observation, and it is up to them to sort through it. I feel some of the racism in the book is intentional and meant for readers to think. Ultimately the novel does not tell readers how to feel.

Authors certainly have responsibility for what they write. Hitler’s Mein Kampf is a work of literature, but its value is degraded because it is a work of hate. Disgrace is hardly Mein Kampf. It may highlight hate, but it is not a work of hate.

Coetzee-the white robed writer or a simple misconception?

Coetzee didn’t really come off as racist to me. While reading “Disgrace” I didn’t really think of race that much. I must have read right over the part about the rapist being black, I mean I read it; it just didn’t light any racist light bulbs above my head. The NY times article made me reconsider my optimism. Perhaps the book is racist, but that doesn’t mean the author is. I don’t know Coetzee; I can’t say for sure what his feelings towards other races are. I have only read one his of novels, I am by no means an expert on him. This may sound harsh, but I often return to this idea when dealing with the motives of authors, and my statement is basically “so what!” People are racist, its real people act that way towards other people. The book was, if anything, racists towards both blacks and whites. The whole novel plays on the stereotypes. I could understand why someone would call the book racist, innocent white family gets attacked by three angry black men, sounds pretty bad, sounds like the black characters are being portrayed as villains only.

We shouldn’t forget the beginning of the book; David Lurie is anything but innocent. The guy is, simply speaking, a dick. He uses women because he realized that he only needs sex rather than some form of compassion. He is smug and arrogant and stubborn and rude to his co-workers. He doesn’t understand what it means to be a friend and in turn refuses to have any. If Coetzee played with the stereotype of evil black man, then he also played with the stereotype of evil white man.

Coetzee was just writing about stuff that happens. People steal and rape people. Would the story have been so compelling had the rapist just been another white family. Would David have felt as out of place and useless as hid if everyone was like him. The whole point was that the rapists were black. Coetzee shouldn’t deny the racism, cause its there, but my point is that it’s not wrong. A story that involves racism doesn’t make an author racist. An author has a difficult job, He has to take many different kinds of people and write about them, he has to give the voices and personalities. Coetzee wrote about what he knew. Yes there are similarities between David and Coetzee; they are both old white guys who lived in Africa. The question the article asks is how deep these simalrties go, but the question I ask is, “who cares?” The best part of literature is controversy. We may never know what Coetzee full intent was with “Disgrace” he can deny it all he wants, but people will continue to dig through each word in the story in hopes of cracking the racist agenda.

Is Disgrace a Racist novel???

“Disgrace” was a novel about a David Laurie a college professor who goes to live with his daughter Lucy on the farm after he is accused of sexual harassment by one of his students. While he is there he helps out on the farm and at an animal shelter. Everything is going find until one day two men and a boy show up and change their lives. David is set on fire and his daughter is raped. Lucy becomes pregnant and decides to keep the baby. In “Out of South Africa, Coetzee’s Novel “Disgrace’ is said to be racist. It is stated that Coetzee is representing the white man’s perception of the post – apartheid black man as negative. The essay also states that in the novel the white man is losing their weapons, property, rights, dinigty, and that white women will have to sleep with “barbaric” black men.

Chris Van Wyk says “The white characters are fleshed out, the black evildoers are not”. This one sentence is a powerful one, in the novel Coetzee is giving the black man a negative image. I guess the reason someone might be led to believe this , is because in the novel Lucy still works on the farm with the black family they believe is hiding the rapists; this is giving black men a negative image. I mean ok the rapist was black, but should the family hide them; just because they are the same race. I found that aspect a little racist. Nadine Gordimer resented this idea and I agree with her. I just don’t see any reason for the family to have help out these criminals / rapist. Also the fact that David sleeps with Bev Shaw and her husband doesn’t resent him for it . I felt that this was a important in the story , because his sexual deviance I was the reason he was there in the first place. I got the feeling that David would never really learn his lesson no matter how many times he would get in a little trouble. Aside from that I didn’t really real think that the book was all that racist. I would say neither Coetzee or this novel was racist , I just think that he wrote about what was happening in South Africa during post - apartheid.

Are we talking about the book or Coetzee?!?!??!?!?

I feel that the New York Times is going about this all wrong, just as everyone else seems to be doing as well. You see I think people seem to get 'lost in translation when talking about Coetzee. Many people say ya he's a racist, I've read Disgrace and there's no doubt in my mind about what his views are. Well the real question is, 'IS THE BOOK RACISTS?!?' Not Coetzee. After reading Disgrace for myself I can see how people can argue both facts, either it is or isn't racists, because Coetzee doesn't outright saw racists remarks, but you can 'read between the lines' and figure it out for yourself.

I myself do feel that the book has an underlining racists tone, but I don't think that, that makes Coetzee racists. Just because someone is writing about something in a book, doesn't necessarily mean that they believe it, or it's true. I have what I believe is a perfect explain, well at least I think it. Last semester I took a class and we were reading poems by Langston Hughes, and when I was Reading one of the poems I realized the narration was that of a woman. I thought it was very strange, but that a man was writing as if he was a woman. I always seemed to think that poems had to be "true," but than after discussing it with the class, we all realized that just because a writers saying something, doesn't make it true. A WRITER MAKES THINGS UP, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO!!!!! People really have to get over the fact that just because the books racists, that makes him racists. What about a book in which someones writing about a crazy serial killer, does that make the author a crazed serial killer? I think we all know the answer, well at least I hope we do. I just find it apolling to make Coetzee seem like a racist, due to his writings, he had an idea for a good book and he ran with it. I have no problem with people discussing the books as being racists or not, but not Coetzee. I feel that branding him a racists makes it seem as though a writer can't write what they truly want, because they forever will have to live up to that book and stand by it's views and principals. I think it's a very dangerous line that should not be crossed, and I think people need to leave him alone.

It seemed all the websites I went to had to also say that Coetzee along with the book were racists. One website stated, "The biographical similarities between David Lurie and JM Coetzee may be superficial. But one cannot help being curious about the extent to which they share similar views. JM Coetzee's work certainly fits him into the same mould as Lurie, a man who “has never been afraid to follow a thought down its winding track” (page 76, Disgrace). (ref.1) I did find one website that made a point not to talk about Coetzee and racism, "I did not wish to accuse Coetzee of racism (simple or otherwise). Rather, I attempted to present an honest discussion on a particular reception of Disgrace in the context of the end of apartheid." (ref. 2) While this website didn't talk of Coetzee, it had to make a point not too. Others wise I have a feeling he might have jumped on the band wagon and went with the fact that Coetzee racists, and he realizes that it's a very controversial subject, so he choose just not to get involved all together.

All and all I feel that the book itself had many racists undertones, but Coetzee himself isn't racists. Well let me clarify that, I'm not sure if he is or not I've never meet or talked to the man, so only he really knows. All I'm saying is a book shouldn't define what a person is or what they believe in.

Sources:
Refrence 1:http://www.chimurenga.co.za/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=52

Refrence 2:http://www.oxonianreview.org/issues/3-3/3-3-5.htm

Authorial Responsibility

Knowing that Coetzee’s novel “Disgrace” explored unresolved tensions of post apartheid order we begin to investigate that the author was accused of brutally representing the white people’s perception of post-apartheid black men. Coetzee was also accused of indicating that in cause of new government, the white man will lose his true worth of character and reputation in result of black dominance. In situations where there would be loss of the protection, property, and rights of the white citizen. This could be one end where someone would call Coetzee’s book racist.

It has been quoted that “In the novel “Disgrace” there is not one black person who is a real human being”.(NY Times) The reason is most according of their immoral behavior in events where rape, robbery, and battery take place in the novel. All acts under the category of crime. “He does not preach, he is not obvious, unlike most South African artists of his time he is not political and this may be a source of misreadings, over readings and misunderstandings. As a white writer who has written a novel through the eyes of a racist white male, he occupies a difficult position.” (chimurenga)

I don’t think that Coetzee is racist, reading his novel it appears more to me a report of witnessed events that occurred during post apartheid South Africa. There hasn’t seemed to be any backing up of David Lurie who appeared to be a roaming moron with a sexual passion that gets him into a lot of trouble and violating the University’s code of conduct. Lurie who is repected by Bill Shaw has even slept with his wife, Bev Shaw out of the blue without even thinking twice and then later catching a prostitute off the street. Has any of his mistakes enabled him to learn his lesson? Certainly the author didn’t state that just because Lurie is white, he is a good man.

The point I’am making is that Coetzee appears to be a referee who does not accuse blacks or whites, instead points out enough remarks throughout his novel the negative actions and advantages of the white and black people. If for example, Lurie was an innocent man who did his job without having sex with a student and later attacked by a black man for no reason, then some people would think Coetzee is racist but then again you cannot be so sure depending on the situation; “Many would agree that Coetzee is an accomplished writer. He skillfully confronts us with the core of his characters' anguish. He draws us, unsuspectingly, to forbidden places. He describes things as they are – no explanations, no judgements, and no outrage.” (chimurenga) Yet, an author’s responsibility is to be wary of any racial remarks he/she brings forth in their text.

Sources:

http://www.chimurenga.co.za/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=52

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/books/review/Donadio-t.html?ex=1355374800&en=6a867c1f36a378dc&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

4.14.08

I'd like to combine our closing conversation on post-modernism with a discussion of authorial responsibility. To that end, for Wednesday give a response to the NY Times article on Coetzee's move to Australia to the right. To what end would someone be right to call Coetzee's book racist? More generally, what is an author's responsibility when it comes to the views he or she brings forth in their text? Examples from outside class are, as always, deeply appreciated.

Disgrace and Post-Colonialism

Post colonialism can be described as “a set of theories in philosophy, film, political sciences and literature that deal with the cultural legacy of colonial rule”. The second part of Disgrace by J.M. Coetzee, I feel, might show connections of post-colonialism. Coetzee shows the readers that political change does not really get rid of sadness. The second part of the book shows us that South Africa deals with racial separation. We now see a more unhappy picture filled with violence for David and Lucy. Lucy and David are tricked into a scam that is meant for them to get really hurt, or perhaps left for dead. Lucy starts to understand what David doesn’t, which is to live where she lives she must tolerate “brutalization and humiliation” and just to live their lives as is. "Perhaps that is what I must learn to accept," she tells her father. "To start at ground level. With nothing No cards, no weapons, no property, no rights, no dignity like a dog." I can say that this story does deal with post-colonialism because in reality when you clearly, we can clearly see that David and Lucy are white and they are living in a place where they are not the same as others. This may seem to bother others. This incident which happened to Lucy and her father, is a great example of what does happen in countries such as South Africa every day. After reading this book we clearly can see that it does have connections to post-colonialism.

The Disgrace-ish End......

"Disgrace" is an amazing story, that really allowed me to play with my emotions. In the beginning I could not see how this story was about post-colonialism, but not more about Lurie and his pathetic life-style. However, once introduced to his daughter Lucy, and her life on the "farm" I began to understand the concept. Lucy lives amongst many Africans, and even her helper Petrus, has stepped over her and built a home for himself and one of his wives. During the attack, all I could think to myself was how horrible it was and how unfair it was to happen to Lucy who always tried to do good and understand the Africans situations. However, it really began to irritate me that she was so silent of the entire incident. I am sure I can not understand her because I have never been brutally attacked the way she has, but I think her decision to not care to seek revenge is more than just her pain getting in the way. I felt that, she was giving in for being a white lady. "What if...what if that is the price one has to pay for staying on? Perhaps that is how they look at it; perhaps that is how I should look at it too. They see me as owing something. They see themselves as debt collectors, tax collectors. Why should I be allowed to live here without paying?" (158). This idea, really summed this entire story up for me. Lucy was acting liberal, but gave into this idea of someone having to owe someone else for living. The idea that once whites enslaved blacks, now has to be turned around for Lucy to feel that she has done her civil duty.

At the end of the story, when Petrus tells David that he will marry Lucy, it really threw me off. I was shocked and angry. I truly felt that Petrus knew about the attack when it was going to occur, and I felt that everything he did was fully beneficial only to himself, and no one else. He was a sneaky bastard, and if anyone says anything differently I'd be really confused.

In terms of post-colonial thinking, I'd have to say it shows a lot about the conflict of those who got colonized and those who came and colonized. It's interesting to see the different between the urban and country living that David and Lucy portrayed. David seemed to live in a white-person dominated area which ruled over the lower colored class (Suraya). In Lucy's position, she was the one living in fear, always hearing that "it is not safe for a woman to live alone". She was attacked, and others even lived in fear putting fences and security systems around their properties (Ettinger).

I sympathize for Lurie. I do not hate him, I just think that he is mis-educated. His emotions do not allow him to truly see beyond racial differences and social variations. However, I guess the apple does that fall from the tree. Even though Lucy is not racist, she is closed minded and allows her guilt of the acts of her ancestors ( or whoever did the colonizing act) take over her logical decision making (i.e. agreeing to marry Petrus).

Coetzee & Petrus-"Selfish and Narrow Interests"

When completing Coetzee’s novel Disgrace, the remnants of post-colonialism are clearly seen underlying the dramatic story of David Laurie and his daughter Lucy. Whether it’s the rape of Lucy by the three unknown-black assailants or the revelation of Lucy’s reaction to the attack, readers of the novel are given symbolic characters to comprehend what Coetzee is trying to get across, which is the effects of a once colonized peoples. As Said states in terms of colonialism, “Anyone with even a vague consciousness of this whole is alarmed at how such remorselessly selfish and narrow interests-patriotism, chauvinism, ethnic, religious, and racial hatreds- can in fact lead to mass destructiveness. The world simply cannot afford this many more times” (Said 369).

Maybe Coetzee feels as Said does about the causes of what one would see as good, such as patriotism can be seen as a double-edged sword. For we have those who manipulate this feeling of total pride in ones home country to establish goals they want for themselves. This can be used to answer why David Laurie cannot see outside his own origin of racial standpoint, this being the west.

Whether this is in sync with Said’s idea of “selfish and narrow interests”, is not for one to decide. But in order to understand it one can use Laurie’s idea’s towards Petrus is an example. For David sees Petrus as a land monger who helped incite an attack against himself and his daughter, “Petrus in my opinion, is itching for Lucy to pull out. If you want proof, look no further than at what happened to Lucy and me. It may not have been Petrus’s brain child but he certainly turned a blind eye” (Coetzee 140). One can understand Laurie’s reaction towards Petrus as founded with later understanding of how he is in fact kin with one of the men who attacked them. But there is also a dubiousness that will be connected with Petrus even until the end of the novel. One in which is held solely by David.

The link

The link between post-colonialism and “Disgrace” becomes much more apparent once I reached chapter seven. Lurie leaves his sophisticated city life and heads to the country to live with his daughter. During his stay. During his stay, both he and his daughter, Lucy, get attacked by a group of men. His daughter is raped by the men and he is lit on fire. This type of reckless violence is an excellent example of how desperate those in Africa have become. While waiting in the hospital, it takes Lurie two hours to see the doctor, this is after he was lit on fire and his eye was burnt shut. This is an example of how low staffed the hospitals are in Africa. One of Lucy’s friends comments on the incident and states “It’s bad enough when you read about it in the paper, but when it happens to someone you know….That really brings it home to you”(102) This quote tells us that this these things aren’t once in awhile occurrences.

Lurie is told that the police won’t save him by a man named Ettinger. “Yes, I never go anywhere without my Beretta…The best is, you save yourself, because the police are not going to save you, not any more, you can be sure”(100) The notion of anarchy comes up, African is so far gone that there is no sense of law. Coetzee wants, nay, needs the reader to understand this, African is in dire need of help. It still needs help. Unlike colonialism, which was ownership, we need to help Africa. Even today, African needs our help. AIDS, poverty, crime, these are all things that still exist today, most people just ignore it, unless you live there and experience it, it seems almost like fantasy. We can all relate to Lurie in some way, we have our bad days and we think it’s the worst, but we really have no idea how bad things can get.

A sense of individuality..

Effects of colonization around the world today include conflicts found in many areas that were once colonized or controlled by Western European authority. Similar to the second half of J.M. Coetzee’s “Disgrace”. Tensions have occurred in Cape town, and it seems as though David, and Lucy’s pride is now lessened. David, and Lucy, once the dominating characters in the novel, have grown apart from each other, now living with several insecurities, and constantly disagreeing with one another’s ideas. In the mean time, Petrus, who was looked upon as the inferior character, has now gained a sense of individuality. At one time in the novel, Petrus even mentions that he “is no longer the dog man”. In the second half of the novel, Petrus is portrayed to be a rebel. For example, in David’s attempt to “nag” Petrus, he says “… I find it hard to believe the men who came here were strangers… “Those men knew about the forestry station. I am convinced they knew about Lucy. How could they have known if they were complete strangers to the district?” Petrus chooses not to take this question”. Petrus continues to not offer David information, which puts David in a rage, to the point where he wants to “take Petrus by the throat.” (pg 119). This demonstrates that Petrus, who was once willing to help David, and Lucy , somewhat a gofer to them, has now stepped up to leading characters, carrying the attitude as if he does not care how they feel. This connection to pos-colonialism, demonstrates the ability of one colony attempt towards liberation. However, the novel this is depicted through individual characters.

Coetzee part duece

I have to say I was getting a little choked up at the end when he was giving his dog over to Bev Shaw, I was kind of hoping he was going to take him but that would have defeated the whole purpose. But all in all, looking at the book as in a post- colonial way we get to see things from the other side. I think that was something I wasen't expecting but all I know is I have grown to really hate Petrus, and his role in reversing the racism. It really started to hit me when they went to Petrus's party and we are told they are the only white people there and were looked upon differently. The post - colonial aspects of it, to me, were kind of difficult to find in the regular way. I thought eveything was kind of flip flopped to a certain degree. I felt like David and Lucy were more the victims of post-colonial ideas then anyone else. "Yes. He is a child. He is my family, my people. So that is it. No more lies. My People. As nacked an answer as he could wish. Well, Lucy is his people." From there on I was always hoping in the back of my mind that David would physically harm Petrus but there were moments when David would feel the same way. But I have to say on his behalf, he had all the right after they raped his daughter, because if that happened to me, I would have not been able to bite my tounge and walk away as David did. But he does think things like this, "Phrases that all his life he has avoided seem suddenly just and right: Teach him a lesson, Show him his place. So this is what it is like, he thinks! This is what it is like to be a savage!" The narrator tells us that he avoided such thoughts all his life but out of these circumstances he had the right to think this way. And I think that goes back to the colonazation, that in the end, he does think that way about certain people. But like I said, it is hard to blame him for such feelings after what had happened. The narrator through the second half of the book did not seem as important because of how David was changing through the novel. In the beginning when he was more selfish and womenizing, the narrator would speak to us differently then at the end. And to be honest, I liked it better in the first half, then in the second.

"Wake up, David. This is the country. This is Africa."

What I think I was sort of getting to (in a kind of roundabout way) in the last blog was the evidence of Achebe's idea that we (Westerners) see Africa as it is projected in Heart of Darkness, as "'the other world,' the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization, a place where man's vaunted intelligence and refinement are finally mocked by triumphant bestiality." I think Lucy's repetition of the statement that "This is Africa," fortifies that image of the bestial other, even compared to David's civilized life in the city of Cape Town (which at the end of the book is being engulfed by the shanties that will return it to Africa's state of otherness).
The first part of the book certainly plays into this perception. All we see is the austerity of the university, David Lurie's house, and Melanie's apartment, all in the civilized world of academic Cape Town. Right away, upon Lurie's arrival on Lucy's farm, that image is contrasted starkly with the realities of the country, and the insecurity of its inhabitants. Ettinger's farm-fortress, Lucy's need for a gun and her sense of security in her dogs, and the silent tension between white and African characters all exist in Lurie's experience on Lucy's farm, an experience very foreign to his city life.
Not only is that contrast evident in the differing lifestyles of Cape Town and Grahamstown, it's also evident in Lucy's attempts at reconciliation with that past. When David is confronted with the slaughter of Petrus' two sheep, and is disgusted, Lucy's only reply is, "Wake up, David. This is the country. This is Africa." This land is the opposite of everything you believe in. It is the counterbalance to your academic, "civilized" life. This is Africa.

Coetzee's version of post colonialism

Upon finishing Coetzee's "Disgrace", there is definitely more of a connection to post-colonialism and the relationship that forms post-apartheid. The idea of force and influence to a group of people and the effects of the residual tension that comes from this force being lifted becomes clear in Lurie's relationship with Lucy and Petrus. More clearly defined events and connection to post-colonialism seen through Lucy's response to the recent attack and her choice to keep the child that has come as a result of the rape, tie the ideas of post-colonialism much closer than the first part of the book. It does not seem as far reaching as the past relationships in the book.

The character of Petrus is one who is exemplary of post-colonialism especially as we see his shift from being a "dog-man" and Lucy's hired help to owning not only his own land, but Lucy's as well. "It is a new world they live in, he and Lucy and Petrus" (Coetzee, 117). There is a definite shift in roles and in power and many of the feelings border hatred and revenge which leads to violence. Both Lucy and David seems to symbolize what might be a colonizer placed in position where the very minute population of Africa has lost its power and is now surrounded by those whom they have oppressed. The rape and the attack they went through releases the pure hatred that these native Africans feel towards them. Lucy asks in a defeated tone, what it was she had done to evoke such hatred in these people? What had she done that made her such a target? However, all Lurie can conclude is by being"forward-looking as Petrus describes her, she wants to "make up for the wrong of the past", a task she cannot take on because it is simply not her fault. However, this raises the question of guilt for generations to come. Should we feel guilty for a past that we had nothing to do with simply because we seem to be tied as humans to one another?

As is typical with post-colonialism, there is a reverse in the roles and those who once held power now seem to have to succumb to those they ruled over. The beginning of the novel does set this up because Lurie is portrayed as a womanizer who uses sex as a way to dominate women and to maintain power, especially with his relationship with Melanie. Perhaps, when Lurie is asked to "break bread" with Melanie's family, and the alienation he feels at the table, is how colonizers now feel in the country or how the white feel in the middle of South Africa. There is of course some degree of discomfort. These feelings do not go away and the hatred that is felt towards these people does not seem to die with the age of colonialism. So, as Lurie suggests, maybe time does not heal all and although physical pain may go away, there is always that underlaying pain of the past experiences. The change that Lucy went through as a person and now having to sell her land to Petrus who has become landowner shows that they are not as primitive as was expected. They are more than the colonizers saw in them, as the woman in Lurie's life became more than just sex, but have an actual presence. As Said suggests, "...White Europeans over black Africans and their ivory, civilization over the primitive dark continent." (378)

Towards the end of the novel, I do feel sympathy for Lurie. The lessons he has learned, although necessary happened in a terrible way. It is important to see him in his transformation and his sort of reverse example of bildungsroman. Upon returning to his office, he "lets it all go to hell" and gives up any further development as a character. However, perhaps this digression needed to happen to force humanity into him. He needed to go through something like this to appreciate life and appreciate things, whether they be human or animal in a sense that exist as themselves and not part of a lower species, as many pf the colonizers saw the colonies. The first half of the book sets up the reader to detest Lurie so in the end, you might notice his change into an actual human being.

After having completed Coetzee's Disgrace, a more direct connection to post-colonialism is apparent. Rather than setting up a context in which racism in post-colonial South Africa can be discussed, Coetzee creates an environment that actually harbors it. The way in which Coetzee presents South Africa as a land of cruelty and violence, both in the attack on the narrator's daughter and the slaughter of unwanted dogs, brings to mind Achebe's critism of Conrad. Achebe says, "Heart of Darkness projects the image of Africa as "the other world," the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization, a place where man's vaunted intelligence and refinement are finally mocked by triumphant beastiality." In many ways, this is what Coetzee has done.

The narrator's daughter, Lucy, says, "It was done with such personal hatred. That was what stunned me more than anything. The rest was...expected. But why did they hate me so? I had never set eyes on them." It's as if Lucy is saying she expected to be attacked because the blacks in South Africa resent her for encroaching upon what is now rightfully theirs. And the question of why they hated her can only produce the answer that she represents the white establishment they have come to resent. The men go unpunished, and Lucy's neighbor even harbors one of them because they are of the same people. Lucy learns she is pregnant from the attack and will marry her neighbor for protection, which she agrees is, "humiliating." This certainly presents Africa as "the other world" in which "refinement" is mocked by "triumphant beastiliaty." When Lucy says, "Perhaps that is what I muyst learn to accept. To start again at ground level. With nohing..." her statement is reminiscent of what the South Africans probably thought when the whites moved in and took over. Lucy echoes reverse racism and in not prosectuing the attackers attempts in her own way not to be perceived as racist.

Lurie himself is often racist in his thinking, although he would probably disagree and argeu that racism is against his refined sensibilities. He says, "Not Mncedisi? Not Nqabayakhe? Nothing unpronounceanle, just Pollux?" about his daughter's attacker's name. He even notes details such as the fact that Lucy's market potatoes are washed clean but the natives' still has earth on them.

Coetzee truly presents Africa as "the other world" in the subplot of the animal hospital. Never mind the fact that millions of unwanted animals are put to death in the Western world. By including the clinic in the story of South Africa and adding some goats, Coetzee risks setting up Africa as an "antithesis" for Europe and civilization, according to Achebe's line of thinking.

However, there is an argument against Coetzee himself being racist, or even his novel. By setting up the racial complexities, Coetzee may simply be telling it as it is. Some whites feel shame, as Lucy and arguably the narrator do, for what their people have done to the blacks. The blacks are rightfully resentful for having been oppressed. Lurie may not be a racist so much as a product of this sytem and his own awkward inability to connect with humanity. The animal clinic subplot may be there to show that Lurie cannot connect with humanity, but since he can connect with animals show that he indeed does have heart.