Feminist Critique

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

Cordelia

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

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

CLASS ON MONDAY 4/28

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

It Sucks Being Cordelia...

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

Lear

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

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

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

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

Feminism and Dowry

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

LOVE And LOYALTY

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

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

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

King Lear

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

Genre of King Lear

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

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

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

Ambition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

feminist reading of King Lear

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

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

A Feminist's Perception

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

a feminist reading of King Lear

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

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

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

For 4.28

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

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

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

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

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

Racist??!?!?

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

So long, and thanks for all the zen!

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

RACIST NO WAY!!!!

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

always in grey

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