Destroying Language Through Pain & Suffering Part 1: Introduction

Since I have started this blog I have become very interested in J. M. Coetzee and this has transformed into a research paper. The four posts below, and this one, are the result of my research on Coetzee's novel Waiting for the Barbarians, and it explores the concepts of pain, suffering, and the Other. The novel struck me from the first time I read it earlier in the year, and in my mind I always wanted to do something more with it. I hope my research is useful for those who are seeking to understand more about Coetzee and his work.

Destroying Language Through Pain and Suffering: An Analysis of J. M. Coetzee's Waiting for the

Barbarians

 

         J. M. Coetzee in his novel Waiting for the Barbarians deals with the issue of torture and how difficult it is to represent it for both a writer, and the tortured victim. In Coetzee's novel the human body appears as a metaphor for a body of text. Michael Valdez Moses suggest that in one of Coetzee's more recent works, Elizabeth Costello, the concept of the body works as a bridging device between the reader and the novel. Something similar can be seen in Waiting for the Barbarians. There is a slight difference, however, because the magistrate utilizes the barbarian girl's scarred body as both a bridging device between his world and hers, and as the foundation for a new world. The magistrate seeks comfort in the girl because his reality is shattered and overtaken by a new world of pain and torture brought in by Colonel Joll.

Destroying Language Through Pain & Suffering Part 2

 Destruction of Reality & the Search for a New World

         The magistrate is made to question his place in the Empire because he has always thought himself as not just a servant of it, but as part of it. However, when Colonel Joll begins with his “investigations” the magistrate realizes that without having actually tortured any of the prisoners himself, he has taken part in the dark affairs of the Empire and cannot fathom the idea. After the magistrate sees Joll off to his expedition he states, “[s]o I ride back, relieved of my burden and happy to be alone again in a world I know and understand.” (Coetzee 15) After Joll has brought in the elements of pain and torture in to the world of the magistrate his world is changed, and he is taken out of his element, finding himself questioning how he should act. His duty to the Empire and his duty to mankind come into conflict in his mind because he has never previously had to make those types of choices.

Destroying Language Through Pain & Suffering Part 3

The Obstacles of Otherness: The Female Other

         It is important to note that one of the most significant obstacles between his understand of the girl is his inability to understand how he should view the girl. Should he look to her as a maternal deity/martyr figure who is to be worshiped, or as a mistress that needs to be opened and used up in order to arrive at her core. True, the barbarian girl symbolizes pain and suffering, but she is also female a fact that the magistrate is unable to ignore.

Destroying Language Through Pain & Suffering Part 4

The Obstacles of Otherness: The Uncivilized Other

         Another reason why the barbarian girl remains in the subverted position of the other is because as Barbara Eckstein states, “As a man of the 'first world,' [the magistrate] is accustomed to assigning meaning to sentient signs, particularly signs of the (barbarian) 'third world.' He can make presence or absence as he chooses.” (87) It is because the magistrate is unable to ignore the difference of “first world” and “third world” that he places yet another obstacle between himself and the girl.

Destroying Language Through Pain & Suffering Part 5

The Obstacles of Otherness: Experience vs Ignorance

        Yet, the concept of experience, and more specifically the experience of pain, is something that also presents complications for the magistrate in his search for meaning in the story of the barbarian girl. Elaine Scarry in her text, The Body in Pain, suggests that the pain of someone else is something unknowable, “one might almost appear to be speaking about two wholly distinct order of events.” (4) The magistrate experiences something similar in the text. As mentioned previously he is alienated from being a participant in the process of torture, and therefore does not have experiences on which to draw on when he first approaches the girl. The magistrate constantly asks her to tell him about what her torturers did, but it is not just facts that he is after. The magistrate seeks much more than that, what he is truly trying to do is find her deepest and most secret feelings, something Scarry tells us is unattainable.

The Technology Behind a Slow Man

          This week I looked at Coetzee's Slow Man and while I found the book a bit slow at first I was able to get into it and absorb some of the ideas Coetzee was getting across. The things that interested me the most in the novel was its take on history and the dynamic of the old and the new. History is set as part of the old, and is set in great peril when it comes into contact with the new. Furthermore, the novel points to the way in which the new is unnatural, or at least in a sense detached from the natural world that was part of the old. Machines can fabricate natural “looking” substitutes, but for Paul Reymant natural and originality only lies within the old. I found there to be a certain disdain for the new because it is seen as artificial and unable to tell the truth, while the old is presented as being pure and truthful. The first instance where I saw this was in chapter eight where Paul Reymant and Marijanna's daughter Ljuba have a discussion regarding his leg. Ljuba asks Paul if he has an artificial leg insisting on concept of having “screws” and Paul states, “I have no screws in me. If I had screws I would be a mechanical man. Which I am not.” (Coetzee, pg.56) Here in this phrase we see that for Paul any invasion of his body would be unnatural and he makes it a point to remark at the end that he is not, mechanical in any way, this is only the start of Paul's efforts to affirm his naturalness. Furthermore, what is important here is that the mixing of metal and flesh is seen as unnatural and so Paul can only fathom metal in a man if the man is machine, in other words a “mechanical man.” This idea is further emphasized by the story of the seamstress and the needle that Paul recalls. Paul then asks himself if “steel really [is] antipathetic to life? Can needles really enter the bloodstream?” The focus of Paul's meditation on this idea is that the steel is an invasive, and foreign being in the body, but what is most significant is Paul's inability to understand how someone made of flesh and bone, of the organic, can ignore the presence of something man-made and lifeless inhabiting their body. (Coetzee, pg. 55)
         Another example of this comes in a moment where Paul is attending therapy and he is being pressed to get a prosthesis so that he may “look natural,” but Paul repeats that he “[prefers] to feel natural. (Coetzee, pg. 59) What is significant here is the idea that the mechanical has the ability to mimic the natural, but it would not be truthful to nature. In chapter nine in particular there is an emphasis on language that is associated with technology and the mechanisms of machinery. For example, Paul states that his therapist “Madeleine tells them...to re-program old and now obsolete memory systems.” (Coetzee, pg. 60) Madeleine uses words that could be easily applied to a machine, or more specifically something like a computer, because she is talking about changing the way something functions, replacing one program for a new program. Madeleine is presented as viewing her patients as having the capability to change almost seemingly at the drop of a hat. She does not make this statement explicit but she implies it with her language. The human body is set on the same level as the machine by Madeleine symbolizing the way in which the modern world pushes the natural into the mechanical trying to not simply change nature, but replace it. It is also significant that Madeleine uses the word “obsolete” because it implies that something is out of date, and so it can be said that the implication is that the natural, the body is out of date, and that it needs the aid of technology to be up to the minute. I also believe that the reference to “memory systems” is significant because in using this kind of technical languages tries to supplant and erase the organic language, it does not talk about memory as something ethereal but as something that can be stored and categorized within a system, to used as aid at later times. Paul resists this idea of “re-programming” all through out the novel, and it reminds me a lot about Disgrace and David Laurie's inability to accept the new South Africa that is unfolding in front of his eyes. Similarly, Paul resists change not simply because he is resisting the control from outside forces, but also because Paul cannot leave behind the natural world where things move at a different pace, a slower pace, much like pictures he developed in his youth. Paul's rejection of the a “new” world is a rejection of a fast changing, fast moving world, which does not allow him to go through a proper mourning process for his loss.

New York Times Takes a Look at Chimpazee Research

I thought I should post this because it directly relates to some of the issues that Coetzee explores in Elizabeth Costello, and The Lives of Animals.

Exploring the Ethical Implications of Chimpazee Research

God of Reason: The Lives of Animals

          Coetzee's The Lives of Animals is a very interesting work, and while it did not manage to turn me vegetarian it certainly pushed me to consider not only what I eat, but how I behave. A concept I found interesting in the lectures was how they approached the idea of reason, specifically "The Philosophers and the Animals." Elizabeth Costello, the character through which Coetzee writes these lectures, presents to us in the novel the idea that "Reason is the being of a certain spectrum of human thinking." (The Lives of Animals, pg. 23) The reason why I point to this statement is because I believe that Coetzee, through Costello, is arguing for us to see past reason so that we may become more open to a discussion of animal rights, as well as our treatment of other human beings. I say discussion because I do not think that Coetzee feeds to us an answer of what is right and wrong, but instead presents to us the tools for a new way of thinking. In this passage Costello states that reason is only one established "spectrum" of the way we think, pointing to the fact that we have many other ways at our disposal to analyze and see the issues. Although, the novel draws the striking comparison between the Holocaust and the slaughter of animals I do not that Coetzee is trying to push an animal rights agenda down our throats, rather I believe that Coetzee is trying to throw his readers into a situation where this very taboo and touchy topic takes us out of our usual spectrum of thinking. That is to say, we cannot solely rely on our ability to reason to comprehend the several ideas that are at stake in the discussion of animal rights.

         On one level I believe that the novel is presenting us several points on the rights of animals, but on the other hand I believe that Coetzee's talk of animals also brings about some interesting points about our humanity towards humans. However, the significant point which I believe is relevant to both is the fact that we cannot run away from knowledge. Coetzee states in his non-fiction essay "Remembering Texas," that “Complicity is not the problem – complicity was far too advance a notion for the time being. The problem was with knowing what was being done. It was not obvious where one went to escape from knowledge.” (Doubling the Point, pg. 51) Coetzee says this about his time at school in Texas, in response to a student who asked him why he lived in US if he did not agree with the war. What Coetzee is trying to say in this phrase is that the student assumed that Coetzee dislike of the war lied in some sense of complicity with what was being done, but it was not complicity that perturbed Coetzee, but only the simple fact of knowing. We must consider that Coetzee had been living in South Africa during apartheid and there too did he suffer the faith of knowing the injustices being done without being able to hide from it. Coetzee's statement says more than it appears to say because through knowing the history of Coetzee's life it implies that the injustices are taking place everywhere and anywhere and we, especially in this age of technology, cannot escape the burden of knowing. I feel that this idea is prevalent in The Lives of Animals and that what Costello is pointing to is not our complicity with a monstrosity, whether in the form of the Holocaust or slaughterhouses, but how knowledge is a powerful thing and our biggest mistake is trying to ignore it. I think this theme has appeared again and again in the works I have read so far. I believe that what the novel is pushing for is a realization from its reader that when one has the knowledge of something one cannot simply try to cover it up and ignore it, and that while complicity may be part of our crime, trying to drown out the cries of others is equally as bad or worse. In Waiting for the Barbarians, the Magistrate is both complicit and attempts to ignore what is being done, but near the end of the novel he denounces the crimes of the army and the citizens publicly, and I believe that really what Coetzee, through Costello, is looking for in these lectures is not necessarily to change the way people think, but to encourage us to not "just...sit silent" (The Lives of Animals, pg.59) against any kind of injustice.

100000 Year Old Art Kit Found In South Africa

100,000 Year Old Art Kit Found In South Africa

I thought this was interesting in general but also because it has to do with art and the way people 100,000 years ago went about storytelling through painting.

Fighting Our Foe to Find a Voice

          I have found in everyone of the novels I have read by Coetzee an exploration of storytelling, and history and Foe has not been the exception. Coetzee has dealt with the problems of finding a voice, how to tell a story, and with the preoccupation of how a story will be understood (or misunderstood) by generations to come. I find that Foe more than any of the other novels reaches into the depths of creation, and what it is to create a narrative and give life to not one, but many different voices. Coetzee in this novel touches on the idea of voice in peculiar way because he gives voice to a woman, Susan Barton, and to a black slave, Friday, during the late 17^th century. These people who during this time would have not had much say in their own lives become the center of the story as the patriarchal narrative dies off when Cruso dies on the ship. The death of Cruso can seen as the metaphorical death of old narratives, that were male centered, and colonial, dying off, to give way to the narrative of this woman and slave.
          Despite the fact that Friday is unable to speak because he has no tongue his silence speaks for him, and it is his eerie silence that lingers and jabs at us at every turn of a page. In the novel while Foe and Susan argue about Friday's inability to tell his story Foe states, “We must make Friday's silence speak, as well as the silence surrounding Friday.” (Foe, pg. 142) Susan becomes obsessed over Friday's loss of his tongue not simply because it is a physical mutilation that is hard to look at, but because it hinders Friday from all communication or because she believes it to. Throughout the novel Susan mourns the fact that Friday cannot engage in storytelling but she does not understand that much like she decides to keep the story of Bahia to herself, Friday too decides to keep to himself, of his own desire. Speech comes in many forms in the novel, it appears in writing, in dialogue, music, gesturing, and even dancing. However, it must be noted that every one of these vehicles for language have their own lexicon and unless one has familiarity with it, it can seem foreign or nonsensical. Susan ignores both Friday's silences and his attempts at expression as simple dullness, while ignoring the fact that she could have been learning about Friday from these expressions. This speaks to the fact that people tend to ignore what they do not immediately recognize and what is not familiar is meaningless. Therefore it can be said that because slaves like Friday represent the “other”, to the “self” their narratives are trivial and senseless. There were times in the book where I felt that Friday did indeed still have a tongue but only chose not to use it because he knew his speech would be misconstrued, and bastardized much like Susan feared would happen to her own words. 

           Susan is always very much concerned with the truth and having her narrative told exactly as she wishes it so that it will be truthful, and not as fantastical lies that she has no control over. In the beginning of the novel Susan tells of the story of her last name and states that her father's last name “was properly Berton, but, as happens, it became corrupted in the mouths of strangers.” (Foe, pg. 10) This idea of the truth being corrupted in the lips of a strange becomes more and more relevant to Susan as she becomes desperate to have her story written down. Susan worries through out the novel about her independence and concreteness, and allowing for a stranger, in this case Foe, to control her narrative would be to lose control over her self-prescribed identity. Susan sees herself as objectified by Foe and reproaches him by saying that “(she is) not a story...(she is) a free woman who asserts her freedom by telling her story according to her own desire.” (Foe, pg. 131) When Susan proclaims that she is not a story but rather a woman, she is trying to claim substance into her being, because she wishes to separate herself from what she calls ghosts, or phantoms. This constant appeal to be seen as a substantial being also speaks to Susan's fear of being but a character in novel, simply a puppet in Foe's text, and even in the text that Coetzee himself has created. In the end whether Susan is substantial or not becomes irrelevant, because her underlying concern is real. This concern is that her story will be trivialized and that it will lose meaning. That she will too suffer Friday's voiceless faith, helplessly trying to gesture a truth that will never be understood.

This quote from William Shakespeare's Macbeth  seemed relevant to me because I felt that Coetzee in this novel not only touched on what it is to create and weave a story, but what it is to create our own narratives and our own worry that we do not hold that control, and more importantly that our substantial being will perish without a meaning or trace:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
(Macbeth, 5.5.25–27)

Waiting for the Last Train Out

“There are only two places, up the line and down the line.”

(The Life and Times of Michael K, pg. 41) 

 

           This week I read the book The Life and Times of Michael K by Coetzee. This book was very different from the previous Coetzee books I have read so far. I was not sure what to make of it, and much like the doctor in the rehabilitation camp Michael K intrigued me, but I could not understand him. However, upon looking at the text again I found that I could understand him more as he related to the idea of waiting in the book.

           From the beginning of the novel Michael K is forced to wait for things that never come, for the bus, for the permits, and even for his mother. Moving from one place to another represents the way in which we move through our lives, but one must note that the buses are late, or never arrive, and that paper work never comes through in this novel. Therefore, it can be said that Michael K's life is stuck in suspension while society wages its war. Yet, the failed bureaucratic system that Michael encounters is not just a bump along the road that is unfortunately placed in his path, but a  man-made obstacle. Michael may clash with  police, nurses, and soldiers, but really he is crashing into the the barrier that is society itself. Very few people are sympathetic in this novel because it tries to develop the idea that people would rather become part of the roadblock than help eliminate it. Everyone would rather wait for the war to be fought and won for them, than to really do anything for themselves or anyone else. This idea can be seen in the way in which Michael is treated when he has contact with figures of authority, he is constantly ignored and told to wait more. However, after his mother's death, his determination to reach Prince Albert forces Michael to see that social restrictions placed upon him are truly meaningless and that they can be avoided through back roads and that he does not have to wait to make life happen. Michael K can be seen as representing the alternatives that are available to all, but which we often neglect.  

           For example, when Michael hunts and kills one of the wild goats of the Visagie's farm we are told that “The thought of cutting up and devouring this ugly thing...repelled him,” and also that he “ate without pleasure, thinking only: What will I do when the goat is consumed?” (The Life and Times of Michael K, pg. 55-6) Here it can be seen that Michael K is repulsed by the violent act of taking without giving anything back, of simple reckless consumption. Coetzee uses the word “devour” rather than “eat” because of its implications of violence and negligence. Michael's discomfort with this idea of devouring up his meal stands for the concept of war and destruction without giving thought to the aftermath and the collateral damage. Michael himself is often presented as collateral damage, he is incarcerated several times for no reason, he is abused by the soldiers and vagrants he encounters, because these people are looking for the most convenient way to serve themselves. Michael is concerned with providing for himself but without placing the burden on others and it is for this reason that gardening becomes his true calling.

           His concern for the destruction of the earth, or his surroundings in general becomes more marked during his second attempt to grow a garden after his escape from the labor camp. There is a moment where Michael is forced to eat what he can find while he waits for his garden to grow and anything he eats is said to “(have) no taste” or as “(tasting) like dust.” (The Life and Times of Michael K, pg. 101) This is because for Michael the act of growing something is synonymous with life and the deeper we move into the book the less Michael will be willing to eat things that he hunts. It must be noted that food becomes enjoyable for him once he has tasted the fruit of his work. The book tells us that “eating the food that (his) own labour (had) made the earth to yield” brought “tears of joy (to) his eyes” and that “For the first time since he had arrived in the country he found pleasure in eating” (The Life and Times of Michael K, pg. 113) His pleasure does not arise from the food itself, or even from the act of eating, but from the the fact that the pumpkin symbolizes to Michael results of his work. Although it can be argued that Michael is simply falling into the system of waiting once more, it has to be remarked that it is his choice to wait because “there is time enough for everything” and waiting is much different when one chooses to be patient. Thus the novel makes a distinction between waiting for one's own to work to flourish and waiting without acting, condemning the latter and making Michael triumphant in his fight to wait on his own terms. 

A Blind Empire and the One Just Man

           This week I read Waiting for the Barbarians and while I found the violence a bit unsettling, I enjoyed the book nevertheless. I am always interested in the way J. M. Coetzee goes about making his character more believably human by putting so much attention into their physicality and sexuality. However, what really caught my eye from the start of this novel was Coetzee's repeated use of the idea of blindness, whether artificial, accidental or metaphorical. In the beginning of the novel the image of blindness we get is that of Colonel Joll and his "two little discs of glass" (Waiting for the Barbarians, pg.1) covering his eyes and the magistrate wondering if he is blind. This image is significant for two reasons. First, it establishes the idea that Colonel Joll has a questionable ability to see things because his eyes are covered, and second it demonstrates the fact that the magistrate and Colonel Joll are from different worlds.

            We can see these ideas develop through out the novel. For example, not much further into the chapter a parallel is drawn between the first young prisoner we see and the Magistrate. The magistrate states, "He has probably never seen anything like it before...I mean the eyeglasses. He must think you are a blind man." (Waiting for the Barbarians, pg. 3) On one level this establishes a connection between the young "barbarian" and the magistrate because they both share a certain distance from the Empire and its modernity, which is exactly what Colonel Joll represents. Despite the fact that these are not the words of young prisoner, Joll is being set apart again from the world of the frontier town. There are many soldiers that are stationed there, but no one quite like Colonel Joll. While many soldiers are stationed there they grow accustomed to the ways of the town, Joll does not. Also, we are reminded that Colonel Joll's ability to see is being put into question, that is not his physical ability to see, but his ability to understand, analyze things and view them past the Empire colored lenses he wears. The Magistrate spends much of his time trying to make Colonel Joll and the envoys of the Empire understand that they are going about things the wrong way, but often he finds that they cannot be reasoned with. Their blindness therefore, becomes a handicap to their perception of the situation around them, which will ultimately lead to the erroneous military decision that devastates their armed forces as well as their town. However, it has to be understood that their blindness in no way serves as an excuse for their actions. The fact that Joll and Mandel  voluntarily shield themselves against any reasoning or explanations presents the audience with an understanding that they do not wish see things a different way, much in the same way that the Empire wishes to do things its way without yielding to the demands of anybody else. The Magistrate describes Colonel Joll's glasses as "dark shields hiding healthy eyes" (Waiting for the Barbarians, pg.5) putting forth the fact that not only does Joll shield himself from what is truly going on around him, but hiding, much the same way the Magistrate tries to hide from the truth behind their interrogation methods at the beginning of the novel.

            The ability to see, to experience things is very important in the novel because really the only person who sees the barbarians is the Magistrate, to everyone else they are only dark shadows in the distance. One cannot understand something that one never sees or experiences and the Empire's blindness to this as embodied by Joll is a comment on this idea. More over it is also a comment on the way the Barbarians become an abstract concept to fear, and the way in which the Empire itself has become an abstract concept beyond the people of the frontier towns who are suppose to be ruled by it.

(EDITED: September 27, 2011 12:29 to be double spaced)

Reflections

            The concept I touched on in my previous posts hinted at the idea of duality in Dusklands, but I did not delve into this as much as I could have mostly because it was something that was brought to my attention by someone else. The idea of a battle between the bodily existence and the conceptual existence is really one of the things that I was trying to get at. The characters can live out their existence and believe in the concept of the colonizer, but does that mean they can embody it? Not necessarily, as is shown by the fact that the bodily existence of both Jacobus and Eugene suffers from their inability to see the concept of the colonizer as what it is, a concept that has been constructed by not just someone, but several people, something inorganic, which they mean to accept as tangible and organic. This concept cannot be lived out because things are simply not as black and white as they might have seem for Jacobus and Eugene. They want to subscribe to the idea of difference, trying to determine who they are based off what they are not. However, both characters find that they have more in common with the other than they had initially thought. The "other," is not quite the other, and can share many things in common with the self. It is like looking at a mirror, thinking that the face that looks back at you is different from you, only to realize that what you have been looking at all along has been your own self. For example, Jacobus has to begin to rethink his ideas of the Namaqua when he is faced with the fact they are proud people, like him. Therefore, he finds himself in the position of having to account for this similarity, which is contrary to what he had known. While acknowledging this fact, that they possess will, unlike his slaves, he has to explicate the difference by subjecting them again to the narrative of the colonizer, without conceding the fact that this same narrative has begun to fail him. Similarly, Eugene tries to explain his failure at work and his marriage by coming to the idea that he is a misunderstood genius. The oppressors then can be seen as being brutalized by their own narrative, in their attempts to oppress others. Their physical bodies must endure the pain that their egos cannot endure when their idea of the colonizer/colonized relationship is subverted. Dusklands does not simply place all answers in one's lap. One has to dig through the text to realize that even though these two characters are horrible, and although it may seem like there is no punishment administered, there is no worse punishment for them than being trapped in their crumbling ideals, because they have seen the light between the cracks of their broken mirror, but they cannot bring themselves to accept what is beyond it.

(Haiti Slave uprising, the slaves hang  old masters)

(EDITED: September 27, 2011 12:31 to be double spaced)

A Prison of Flesh

The reading  for this week was Coetzee's Dusklands, of course I went in not really knowing what to expect and with only a vague idea that I would be dealing with some concepts of colonialism. When I finished the book I realized there were many things that troubled me, but one thing that really caught my eye was the juxtaposition between the reactions of the mind versus those of the body under some kind of intense pressure, or stress factor. This post is dedicated to this idea.

            In J. M. Coetzee's novel Dusklands, a connection arises between the loss of control of the character's bodies and minds, and the world that affects them. Although the book is divided into two stories, both of the main characters, Eugene Dawn and Jacobus Coetzee, exhibit a struggle for power. The concept of colonialism is embodied both by means of individual struggles and through their fight to control their bodies and impulses. When their loss of control reaches a critical point, it becomes mirrored in the way that they are suddenly overtaken by illness.

            For Eugene it is a mental illness which epitomizes his inability to deal with losing power in his life. Eugene means to be a conquering force both in his work place and at home but fails to have any real power over his superior, Coetzee, or his wife, and thus Eugene begins a battle over the control of his mind that threatens the control he exerts over his body. Eugene tells us from the beginning that he is “intense” but “only because (his) will is concentrated on subduing spasms in the various parts of (his) body.” (Dusklands, pg. 5) By this we are able to learn that Eugene prizes the ability to control his body and that he is terrified to lose that control. Similarly when he demonstrates his fear of losing control over the Vietnam Project to his superior, Coetzee, he comments on his inability to control the curling of his toes while trying helplessly to conceal it. Another instance in which this association occurs is when he mentions his wife, Eugene states: “I am also unable to rid myself of the habit of stroking my face. Charlotte disapproves of this tic, which she says betokens anxiety.” (Dusklands, pg. 5) As we move through the novel it becomes evident that Eugene is so concerned with keeping his poise that the concern becomes externalized in the form of tics. The spams that Eugene suffers to control, are not only signs of a growing anxiety that eventually drives him over the edge, they also reflect his worries over the loss of control over the creation of the Vietnam Project. Eugene believes that he is misunderstood by everyone; both his superiors who he believes do not understand his work, and by his wife who both does not approve of his work and fails to provide for him a physical and mental release for his stress. He states, “I am only finding a franker way to touch my own centers of power than through the unsatisfying genital connection.” (Dusklands, pg. 10) Although he fails to mention creativity directly, one can gather that his power is his creative genius, and that not being able to assert himself as man, to his wife, he means to prove he is indeed “the young-bull” (Dusklands, pg. 5) by means of his written work to everyone else. Still, Eugene fails to do either, allowing the situation to culminate in the stabbing of his son, where Eugene loses not only control of his body, but of his mind. 

            In the second part of the book, Jacobus Coetzee, attempts to appear as a grand explorer set out to conquer the wild Africa that is yet to tamed. He however, finds that taming the wild is much more difficult than he would have expected. Coetzee is unable to assert his dominance over the Namaqua, and his inability to control them as wild people, as untamed savages, is resounded in the way he suddenly falls ill and is unable to take care of himself and his expedition. The cause of his illness, while unknown, is hinted to stem from guilt and fright at the inability to maintain control over the chaos he has ensued. Before his sickness worsens, he maintains lucidity long enough to recognize that he “had fallen into the hands of callous thieves...whose hospitality I had only yesterday insulted” (Dusklands, pg. 76) When Coetzee perceives danger close by, he becomes increasingly ill. For example, after he and his men leave the Namaqua following an incident with the village people, he “(has) bad dreams” and wakes up “shivering and light-headed.” ( Dusklands, pg. 74) As the proximity of the village people increases so does too Coetzee's sickness. Upon noticing “dark little figures following” Coetzee evacuates his “bowels in a furious gush” ( Dusklands, pg. 74) an action that will become involuntary once Coetzee feels he has lost total control over his men and the situation. Unlike Eugene however, Coetzee is able to regain his consciousness safely without harming himself or anyone. However, this is not to say that Coetzee avoids any after effects of his illness. Upon recovering Coetzee discovers an “eruption...forming on (his) left buttock.” (Dusklands, pg. 82) This eruption symbolizes a sort of battle wound obtained in the fight against the Namaqua. However, said wound is meant to be unheroic, not a scar that will remind him of a valiant defeat, but rather something that made him the object of ridicule, and that brought him down from his power position of “tamer of the wild”( Dusklands, pg. 78)  to simply a cowering incontinent animal.

An Introduction to Coetzee and Me

My name is Karla and I am setting up this blog in hopes of better appreciating the issues that J. M. Coetzee presents in his novels. The first time I read his work was in an undergraduate class and it made me realize that I had to leave a certain comfort zone to truly understand the issues he dealt with in Disgrace.

At twenty I had begun to finally think of myself as an adult only to realize that my view on life was completely distorted, that I led a sheltered life and had never really given thought to many of the things that Coetzee dealt with in his book. One of the issues he dealt with in his novel was the sexuality of the mature man, and this was as one would say colloquially "thrown in my face." It shattered the image I have had of male authority figures up to that point. The main character's disastrous relationship with females made me lose a little more hope in that illusive concept that we call love, and made me question the ties that bind a daughter and a father. Moreover, I realized that racial violence and discrimination were very much still around today, and that without realizing in some way I had made it part of my everyday life. It was hard to come to terms with the fact that I had found even the faintest glimmer of racism in my self while I had been constantly asking for equality.

I am hoping that Coetzee will push my limits again, help me discover new things about literature as well as myself, and I hope to take in as much of what he has to say and incorporate it into my own creative writing.
For now I will leave you my audience with a smile on your face, hopefully. Please enjoy Makmende!

(EDITED: September 27, 2011 12:33 to be double spaced)