“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.
I wanted to comment on two aspects of your post that fascinated me. First, your discussion of the waiting in the novel. To be honest, I had never really thought much about this motif, but now that you bring it up it strikes me that this motif creates some interesting resonances between _Michael K_ and _Waiting for the Barbarians_. I was wondering if you saw any connections between the "waiting" that happens in these two texts, or if the "waiting" works quite differently in each one. Initially I (like you) had thought of _Michael K_ as quite different from Coetzee's earlier work, including _Waiting for the Barbarians_, but now you have gotten me thinking of connections. Another connection is surely the doctor who narrates the second part of _Michael K_ and the magistrate in _Waiting_. They seem to me to be quite similar, in some ways. But my second point was not about this character similarity, but rather that I was intrigued by your identification with the doctor in _Michael K_. Coetzee seems to be very good at creating these kinds of smart, self-aware, but also deluded, self-absorbed, and ultimately not very sympathetic characters who are reader stand-ins to some extent, and who mirror the unheroic choices many people make, and the irresolvable dilemmas many people live through for so much of their lives. I say "many people" here because I am wondering if these kinds of moral dilemmas are unique to a certain class of people, and even unique to people from imperial metropolises, and if it is these people in particular with whom Coetzee identifies and/or whom he wishes to unravel? (This focus itself poses a dilemma for the writer and for readers, but that's another post...) In short, I wonder what you think of your identification with the doctor, how you "read" this identification, how you see yourself constructed as Coetzee's reader...
ReplyDelete