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.