J M Coetzee's Foe

Hello Everyone, 

This blog is a part of thinking activity. 

- Assigned by Megha ma'am.

J. M. Coetzee :

John Maxwell Coetzee[a] FRSL OMG (born 9 February 1940) is a South African and Australian novelist, essayist, linguist, translator and recipient of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Literature. He is one of the most critically acclaimed and decorated authors in the English language. He has won the Booker Prize (twice), the CNA Literary Award (thrice), the Jerusalem Prize, the Prix Femina étranger, and The Irish Times International Fiction Prize, and holds a number of other awards and honorary doctorates.

Coetzee moved to Australia in 2002 and became an Australian citizen in 2006. He lives in Adelaide, South Australia. He is patron of the J. M. Coetzee Centre for Creative Practice at the University of Adelaide. His most recently published book is The Pole and Other Stories (2023).

Major Work :

- Dusklands(1974)

- In the Heart of the Country(1977)

- Waiting for the Barbarians(1980)

- Life & Times of Michael(1983)

" We must cultivate, all of us, a certain ignorance, a certain blindness, or society will not be tolerable."

- J.M. Coetzee

Foe :

- 1986 novel set in early 18th Century.

- A satirical reinvention of Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe and also contains minimal plot of it.

- Novel contains 4 Chapters.

Characters :

• Susan Barton 
• Cruso
• Friday
• Mr.Foe
• Daniel Foe
• Young Girl
• Amy

Write a blog on comparative and critical analysis of Daniel Defoe’s ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and J. M. Coetzee’s ‘Foe’.

Ans. 

Introduction :

Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe, published in 1719, is often hailed as one of the first novels in the English language and tells the story of a man's survival on a deserted island. In contrast, J.M. Coetzee’s Foe, published in 1986, provides a postcolonial re-imagining of Defoe's novel, deconstructing and challenging the original narrative through the lens of power, voice, and representation.

Comparative and critical analysis of Daniel Defoe’s ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and J. M. Coetzee’s ‘Foe’. :

The Story of Survival and the Question of Authority :

Robinson Crusoe centers on the tale of a man stranded on a deserted island, where he not only survives but asserts his dominance over nature. Crusoe embodies Enlightenment ideals of self-reliance, rationalism, and mastery over the environment, showcasing a Western approach to survival and colonization. Crusoe’s ‘taming’ of the wilderness and the establishment of his own “kingdom” mirror European imperialist ambitions, subtly conveying a message of Western superiority.

In Foe, Coetzee retells Crusoe’s story but from the perspective of Susan Barton, a female castaway who shares the island with Crusoe and his servant Friday. The choice of Barton as the narrator challenges Crusoe’s monopoly on his story, offering an alternate narrative where voices that were once silent, particularly those of women and the colonized, seek to assert themselves. The addition of Susan Barton as a storyteller serves as a critique of the singular authority and authorship that Crusoe’s narrative traditionally enjoys.

Reclaiming the Silenced: The Voice of Friday :

One of the most poignant aspects of Foe is its exploration of Friday’s voice, or rather, his lack thereof. In Defoe’s original work, Friday is a passive character—a ‘savage’ whom Crusoe converts to Christianity and teaches English, reinforcing the colonial narrative of the "civilizing mission." Friday represents the indigenous people of colonized lands, subjugated and voiceless.

Coetzee’s Foe reverses this dynamic by focusing on Friday’s muteness as a symbol of the suppression faced by colonized individuals. In Foe, Friday’s silence is more than just a literal condition; it represents the erasure of his story, language, and identity. Coetzee uses this silence as a powerful metaphor for the silenced histories of colonized peoples. Susan Barton’s attempts to understand and ‘give voice’ to Friday bring forth complex questions: Who has the right to tell someone else’s story? Is it possible to fully understand or represent another’s suffering, especially when it comes from a different cultural and historical background?

Feminist Perspective and the Challenge of Authorship :

In Robinson Crusoe, there is little room for female voices or perspectives; the narrative is dominated by Crusoe’s masculine, colonial gaze. His actions and his survival are the central concerns, while other characters, such as Friday, are simply part of the background that serves his journey.

In Foe, Coetzee introduces Susan Barton, whose presence destabilizes the masculine authority of Crusoe’s story. Barton not only challenges Crusoe’s authority but also disrupts the traditional power dynamics of storytelling. By making Susan a narrator in Foe, Coetzee critiques the male-dominated authorship in literature. Her struggle to get the writer Foe (a representation of Defoe) to accurately tell her and Friday’s story highlights the difficulty of asserting a woman’s perspective in a male-centered narrative.

Susan’s journey also delves into feminist concerns, as she repeatedly finds herself ignored or patronized by the character of Foe, the writer. Her struggle with Foe becomes symbolic of women’s fight to break free from the margins and gain their own voice within a system that often distorts or overlooks them. Through Susan, Coetzee raises essential questions about authority in storytelling: who gets to write history, and how are narratives shaped by those in power?

Colonialism and Postcolonial Critique :

Robinson Crusoe can be read as a testament to colonial attitudes of the early 18th century, emphasizing European dominance, ‘civilization,’ and conversion. Crusoe’s relationship with Friday, framed as an act of rescue and enlightenment, exemplifies the colonial ideology that ‘uncivilized’ societies require Western intervention.

In Foe, Coetzee subverts this colonial ideology by emphasizing Friday’s right to his own identity. The story of Foe reflects postcolonial concerns by acknowledging that the narratives of colonized individuals have been systematically suppressed or rewritten by colonial forces. By giving space to Friday’s silence, Coetzee allows readers to recognize the weight of stories that remain untold. This narrative silence asks us to acknowledge the gaps in our understanding of history, particularly regarding the suffering and resistance of the colonized.

Metafiction and the Construction of Narrative :

Coetzee’s Foe also plays with the concept of metafiction, blending reality and fiction in ways that challenge the reader’s perception of truth in storytelling. By including Daniel Foe (a stand-in for Defoe) as a character, Coetzee draws attention to the process of writing and the construction of narratives. This device forces readers to think critically about how stories are shaped by their authors and question the authenticity of the “true story.”

In Robinson Crusoe, there is little acknowledgment of Crusoe’s biases or of how his perspective shapes the narrative. Foe, on the other hand, openly critiques the idea of an objective, unmediated narrative by showing the process of negotiation and omission involved in writing. Susan’s struggles with Foe to tell her story reflect Coetzee’s critique of the selective nature of historical and literary narratives.

The Role of Language and Communication :

Language is a powerful theme in both novels but is treated differently. In Robinson Crusoe, Crusoe’s teaching of English to Friday symbolizes the imposition of Western culture and values. Crusoe’s belief that English is necessary for communication further reflects colonial ideals, where the colonizer’s language is privileged over native languages.

In Foe, language becomes a tool of power and limitation. Friday’s inability to speak or write English raises profound questions about voice and autonomy. Susan’s inability to communicate with Friday or truly understand him emphasizes the limitations of language and the barriers that prevent genuine connection between cultures. By leaving Friday mute, Coetzee underscores the failure of colonial narratives to fully encapsulate the perspectives of those they dominate, suggesting that some experiences and histories resist translation into the colonizer’s language.

Psychological Depth and Existential Questions :

In Robinson Crusoe, the focus is largely on physical survival and establishing dominion over the island. Crusoe’s psychological struggles are only touched upon, as he remains relatively certain of his purpose and sense of self. His faith in God and his own abilities keep him grounded, offering a straightforward narrative of overcoming hardship through willpower and resourcefulness.

In Foe, Coetzee introduces a more complex, existential layer to survival. Susan Barton grapples with deeper questions of identity, purpose, and autonomy. Her journey is not only about survival but about the struggle to assert her narrative in a world that marginalizes her. This added psychological depth brings forth questions about the meaning of identity, authorship, and the self, pushing readers to consider the inner lives of characters who traditionally serve as ‘others’ in colonial texts.

Identity :

In Robinson Crusoe, Enlightenment values like human reason and control over nature shape Crusoe's journey, which is often seen as a story of independence and personal growth. His transformation on the island reflects the Western idea of self-discovery and progress. 

However, in Foe, this idea of independence is questioned. Susan's journey is less about personal growth and more about gaining control over her own story. Friday’s silence challenges the Western view of individual expression, suggesting that real identity is complex and often suppressed by dominant narratives.

The Use of Intertextuality :

Foe by Coetzee both references and critiques Robinson Crusoe, questioning the assumptions in Defoe’s work and highlighting how colonial literature has traditionally silenced marginalized voices. As a postcolonial response, Foe challenges the idea of historical “truth” through Susan’s struggle to tell her story accurately. 

While Crusoe’s perspective is accepted as fact in Robinson Crusoe, Coetzee shows in Foe that every story is shaped by the narrator’s biases and interests. This aligns with postcolonial critiques, which argue that historical records often distort or leave out the perspectives of colonized people.

Conclusion:

Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and J.M. Coetzee’s Foe reflect two contrasting eras of thought: the age of exploration, colonization, and Enlightenment in Robinson Crusoe versus the postcolonial, deconstructive era in Foe. Coetzee’s novel not only reinterprets Defoe’s text but also critiques it, shedding light on issues of voice, identity, and authorship. Through Susan Barton’s challenge to Crusoe’s authority and Friday’s haunting silence, Coetzee questions the ethics of storytelling and the impact of colonialism on narrative history.

Redading Resource :

Foe - J. M. Coetzee from Dr. Yesha Bhatt

Thank You for Visiting....