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