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.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Monday, April 14, 2008
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
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.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Coetzee on Post-Colonialism II
The early pages of J.M Coetzee’s Disgrace set up the dynamics of white supremacists, elitist superiority of a post-colonial upbringing. It is as Edward Said’s posited it; “Independence was for white and Europeans, the lesser or subject peoples were to be ruled” (374). In Disgrace’s South African setting, white men, although the minority typically viewed the native blacks as ‘subjected’. Coetzee’s protagonist David Lurie, was involved in relationships that mimicked this power and race supremacy.
This introduction follows with a story, exploring post-colonial “residues” which permeated the mindset of David Lurie’s generation. Lurie’s age, mid fifties, is significant because he was raised in a generation that fiercely maintained this supremacist attitude. This stance is evident in David’s behavior towards his daughter Lucy’s neighbor, the black Petrus. David finds it difficult to accept the modern, equal, neighborly relationship that exists between Petrus and Lucy. Admittedly, David does make an effort to rectify this indigenous position, “In spite of which he feels at home with Petrus, is even prepared, however guardedly, to like him.” (117) David is perpetually conscious of the stereotype of white dominance that he has been rigid for so long. Petrus, at one point, at a loss for a proper label, calls Lucy his “benefactor”. David recognizes the societal necessity of reevaluating language to accomadate the changning dynamic. “A distasteful word” David muses about Petrus’s choice of ‘benefactor’, “the language he draws on with such aplomb is, if he only knew it, tired, friable… what is to be done?... nothing short of starting all over again with the ABC.” (129)
Notably, Lurie’s attitude is juxtaposed to that of his daughter, Lucy, more liberal minded, and obviously of a newer generation. Lucy although initially having hired him as an employee, honestly views him as an equal, insisting; “’I can’t order Petrus about. He is his own master.’” (114) David cannot as easily allow the overturning relationship, that Petrus could essentially be his daughter’s master. Conversely, Lucy was willing to accept Petrus as a husband, claiming her father must not “get on [his] high horse with Petrus” (204).
It seems David was correct when he recognized that “Between Lucy’s generation and mine a curtain seems to have fallen.” (210) As a reader, I am inclined to think the revolutionizing is positive.
This introduction follows with a story, exploring post-colonial “residues” which permeated the mindset of David Lurie’s generation. Lurie’s age, mid fifties, is significant because he was raised in a generation that fiercely maintained this supremacist attitude. This stance is evident in David’s behavior towards his daughter Lucy’s neighbor, the black Petrus. David finds it difficult to accept the modern, equal, neighborly relationship that exists between Petrus and Lucy. Admittedly, David does make an effort to rectify this indigenous position, “In spite of which he feels at home with Petrus, is even prepared, however guardedly, to like him.” (117) David is perpetually conscious of the stereotype of white dominance that he has been rigid for so long. Petrus, at one point, at a loss for a proper label, calls Lucy his “benefactor”. David recognizes the societal necessity of reevaluating language to accomadate the changning dynamic. “A distasteful word” David muses about Petrus’s choice of ‘benefactor’, “the language he draws on with such aplomb is, if he only knew it, tired, friable… what is to be done?... nothing short of starting all over again with the ABC.” (129)
Notably, Lurie’s attitude is juxtaposed to that of his daughter, Lucy, more liberal minded, and obviously of a newer generation. Lucy although initially having hired him as an employee, honestly views him as an equal, insisting; “’I can’t order Petrus about. He is his own master.’” (114) David cannot as easily allow the overturning relationship, that Petrus could essentially be his daughter’s master. Conversely, Lucy was willing to accept Petrus as a husband, claiming her father must not “get on [his] high horse with Petrus” (204).
It seems David was correct when he recognized that “Between Lucy’s generation and mine a curtain seems to have fallen.” (210) As a reader, I am inclined to think the revolutionizing is positive.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Post Colonial – Land Connection
Petrus along with the rest of the African people are ambitious to take back what’s theirs. The time when the white colonists predominantly took African land into their control; “Petrus would like to take over Lucy’s land. Then he would like to have Ettinger’s too, or enough of it to run a herd on.” (117) Petrus backs up his argument on Pollux with David; “David, it is a hard thing you are saying, that this boy is a thief. He is very angry that you are calling him a thief. That is what he is telling everyone. And I, I am the one who must be keeping the peace. So it is hard for me too.” (137)
Yes, it’s hard for every African to reclaim their land after it was under control by whites; “Many of us are struggling to find new strategies of resistance. We must engage decolonization as a critical practice if we are to have the meaningful chances of survival . . .” – Bell Hooks (364) They are not supposedly thieves but citizens who have every right to reclaim their inherent origins of land. It’s hard for Petrus too, even though he is sharecropping Lucy’s land. Bev Shaw states; Petrus is itching for Lucy to pull out.” (140)
Lucy finally admits it; “They see me as owing something. They see themselves as debt collectors, tax collectors. Why should I be allowed to live here without paying? Perhaps that is what they tell themselves.”(158) In this scene of the novel we interpret the emphasis on how Africans claim their territories after a long struggle through liberation.
Bell Hooks states; “The postmodern critique of ‘identity’, though relevant for renewed black liberation struggle, is often posed in many ways problematic”.(364) Meaning that Africans have identified themselves as beneficiaries of their own native soil. Towards the end of the novel you find a whole deal of payback by Africans in relation to Petrus stating “I will marry her”[lucy]. (202) David answers back: “This is not how we do things. . . We . . . Westerners”. (202) Petrus’ decision is instead an act of polygamy. Polygamy, itself is tabooed in western societies. It’s rather a cultural practice in third world countries especially in Africa.
Yes, it’s hard for every African to reclaim their land after it was under control by whites; “Many of us are struggling to find new strategies of resistance. We must engage decolonization as a critical practice if we are to have the meaningful chances of survival . . .” – Bell Hooks (364) They are not supposedly thieves but citizens who have every right to reclaim their inherent origins of land. It’s hard for Petrus too, even though he is sharecropping Lucy’s land. Bev Shaw states; Petrus is itching for Lucy to pull out.” (140)
Lucy finally admits it; “They see me as owing something. They see themselves as debt collectors, tax collectors. Why should I be allowed to live here without paying? Perhaps that is what they tell themselves.”(158) In this scene of the novel we interpret the emphasis on how Africans claim their territories after a long struggle through liberation.
Bell Hooks states; “The postmodern critique of ‘identity’, though relevant for renewed black liberation struggle, is often posed in many ways problematic”.(364) Meaning that Africans have identified themselves as beneficiaries of their own native soil. Towards the end of the novel you find a whole deal of payback by Africans in relation to Petrus stating “I will marry her”[lucy]. (202) David answers back: “This is not how we do things. . . We . . . Westerners”. (202) Petrus’ decision is instead an act of polygamy. Polygamy, itself is tabooed in western societies. It’s rather a cultural practice in third world countries especially in Africa.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Colonialism in Coetzee (Part 2)
There was some illumination about the presence of colonialism in Disgrace after finishing the book. I don’t think that’s what Coetzee set out to do but from what little we know about the man’s life it’s reasonable to assume that he never really intends to do any real thing in his work. But there is still so much about how someone feels about the shift in structure in post-apartheid
About Petrus, who is of course the most prominent black character in the work, I think his characterization was deliberately planned to make us not like him on a certain level. He strikes me as man a hair trigger away from becoming a malicious force. He wants to drive out the whites. Now why does he want to do this?
On a very clear level there is the aspect of reclamation involved. Petrus might see himself as taking back the land of his people, his ancestors, his birthright that was taken from him and his father and his father before him by the whites. I point to the Cheikh Hamidou’s quote in The Novel in
“They are truly African because they are born in Africa, they live in
Hamidou is talking about
There is something to be said about the way David Lurie treats him both before and after he realizes Petrus might have had something to do with the attack on Lucy’s farm and the key evidence of this at least to me is on p. 140 where he says to Bev:
“Because Petrus has a beard and smokes a pipe and carries a stick, you think Petrus is an old-style kaffir. But it is not like that at all. Petrus is not an old-style kaffir, much less a good old chap.”
Lurie’s not just accusing Bev of naivety, he seems to be projecting his own ideas and impressions of Petrus on to her; impressions that were proven wrong after the attack. He was willing to see Petrus as a kind hard worker and sees him now as a man who may be smarter and more cunning than any other person he’s encountered thus far. It is once again, just as we saw in his phone call to Soroya and having to deal with the fall out of his affair with Melanie, the colonialist being forced to recognize the change in the power structure and the humanity of the formerly colonized.
As to my feelings about Lurie, I don’t know. He’s certainly not someone I’d like to become anytime soon but unlike Sarah I don’t hate the man. May be I’m so screwed up in my own head that I can’t see why there’s so much venom towards him or maybe I still just see him a character in a book. I’m indifferent, yeah he manages to act like big jerk all the time but he’s still ink and paper to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)