“But this is not a place of words. Each syllable, as it comes out is caught and filled with water and diffused. This is a place where bodies are their own signs. It is the home of Friday.”
This passage from the last page of J. M. Coetzee's novel Foe, shows a reflection on the limits of language. It solves the puzzle of the story, of why it has previously failed to tell that of Friday. Although it seems to be the centre of Susan Barton's narration, she could only assume what the core of his story is. The reason for this blank space though is explained in that very quote: As a forcefully mutilated and silenced character, whose tongue has been removed,Friday is, in the end, revealed to not be in the power to express himself with the convention of words or in linguistic terms but embodies a different form of communication.
The novel Foe, written by the South African author J. M. Coetzee is a rewriting of Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, first published in 1719. It questions the colonial values embedded in the original and deconstructs the concept of Empire. He thus constructs a pseudobiographical fiction to Defoe himself and the original text. As part of the canon it paints a nearly idealistic picture of first colonial settlement.
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. Establishing Systems of Representation
I.1. Defoe's Empire
I.2. Coetzee Demolishes the Canon
II. Struggling with Author-ity: The Functions of Susan's Narration
III. In Search of His Voice: Friday's Muteness as the Core of the Story
Conclusion
Works Cited
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines how J. M. Coetzee's novel "Foe" functions as a postcolonial rewriting of Daniel Defoe's "Robinson Crusoe", specifically focusing on the deconstruction of colonial discourse, the politics of representation, and the marginalization of the "Other" through language.
- The critique of colonial values and the master-servant dialectic.
- The role of authorship and the reliability of the narrator.
- The function of silence and non-verbal communication as resistance.
- The deconstruction of the Western literary canon and imperial authority.
- The interplay between historical reality, fiction, and the limits of language.
Excerpt from the Book
I.1. Defoe's Empire
In the initial setting of Defoe's Crusoe, the island is encountered as the “other” space. It is described as a “wild miserable place”, barren and desolated. The seaman Crusoe is cast on this unknown and savage territory. The notion, that he actually is the coloniser of the island, is carried by the hard labour he puts into making the land fertile and creating a liveable environment to himself. However, the attitude of colonization is most of all manifested in the master-servant-dialectic he engages in with Friday.
After Crusoe saves the indigenous man from great danger, he willingly and full of thankfulness becomes his servant. Friday who had previously belonged to a cannibalistic community embodies all the stereotypical notions of the uncivilised savage, who must be domesticated by the “hard labouring and intelligent” white settler. Cruso gives Friday his name too: “I made him know his name should be Friday, which was the day I saved his life. I called him so for the memory of the time.” The act of naming itself is of that claiming property. Eyeing him like a slave-master, about to choose himself a working hand, he reveals Friday to be “a comely, handsome fellow, perfectly made, with straight, strong limbs, not too large, tall and well-shaped”. Crusoe thinks it justifiable to claim property of the savage since he stands in his “debt” for having saved him and let him live.
Submission towards a master, or a superior collective seems pre-inscribed in Friday. As Sam Durrant writes, “Friday is passed over or lost as a subject”, so, after having been freed from the cannibals, he “sets [Robinson's] foot upon his head”. An act serving Crusoe as the “token of swearing to be my slave forever”. Since the two do not speak the language of the other, Crusoe starts to “teach him to speak to me [...] [and] likewise teach him to say master”. It is made clear by Crusoe though, that his caring for Friday is based solely on a purpose to himself.
Chapter Summaries
Introduction: This section presents the core argument that J. M. Coetzee’s "Foe" deconstructs the colonial and linguistic hierarchies established in Daniel Defoe's "Robinson Crusoe".
I. Establishing Systems of Representation: This chapter analyzes how Defoe constructed an ideal colonial narrative and explores how Coetzee interrupts this tradition through an intertextual critique.
II. Struggling with Author-ity: The Functions of Susan's Narration: This section examines the narrative structure of "Foe" and how the protagonist Susan Barton’s struggle to tell her story exposes the inherent failure and manipulation of colonial authorship.
III. In Search of His Voice: Friday's Muteness as the Core of the Story: This chapter focuses on Friday’s silence as both a product of colonial mutilation and a site of resistance that challenges Western language-based definitions of identity and memory.
Conclusion: This final section synthesizes the findings, confirming that Coetzee successfully writes back against the colonial canon and highlights the limitations of the Western discourse to represent the "Other".
Keywords
Postcolonialism, J. M. Coetzee, Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe, Foe, Representation, Colonialism, Language, Silence, Author-ity, Other, Intertextuality, Apartheid, Canon, Narration.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper explores how J. M. Coetzee's "Foe" critically rewrites and deconstructs Daniel Defoe's "Robinson Crusoe", specifically addressing how colonial power dynamics are reflected in language and narrative representation.
What are the central themes of the work?
Key themes include the critique of imperialism, the marginalization of the colonized "Other", the instability of authorship, the limits of linguistic expression, and the search for authentic identity outside of dominant Western structures.
What is the research objective of the study?
The objective is to demonstrate how Coetzee uses intertextual strategies to challenge the authority of the original "Robinson Crusoe" and to highlight the silenced narratives of characters like Friday and Susan Barton.
Which scientific methods are applied?
The paper employs a literary analysis approach, utilizing postcolonial and poststructuralist theory to interpret the primary texts through the lenses of narrative reliability, discourse analysis, and the politics of writing.
What does the main body of the paper cover?
It covers the foundational systems of representation in Defoe's work, the subversion of these systems in Coetzee's novel, the role of Susan Barton as a struggling narrator, and the significance of Friday’s silence.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Postcolonialism, Representation, Colonialism, Language, Silence, Intertextuality, and the concept of the "Other" in literary discourse.
How does the paper interpret Friday's silence?
Friday's silence is interpreted not merely as a lack of voice, but as a form of resistance against imperial linguistic codes and an expression of a collective identity that cannot be retrieved by Western narratives.
What is the significance of the character Susan Barton?
Susan Barton is portrayed as a flawed narrator whose struggle to control her story exposes the patriarchal and colonial biases embedded in the institution of literature, illustrating the difficulty of narrating the experiences of the oppressed.
In what way does Coetzee modify the original Robinson Crusoe story?
Coetzee introduces Susan Barton as a narrator, makes Defoe a fictional character within the story, and shifts the focus from an idealized survival narrative to a reflection on the ethics of representation and the politics of authorship.
- Quote paper
- Sarah Pagan (Author), 2012, (Un-)Voicing the Empire: Coetzee's Re-Writing of "Robinson Crusoe", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/209144
