A Title Speaks a Thousand Words: Allusions to "Waiting for the Barbarians"

While searching the web today, I came across a link for Samuel Beckett's "Waiting for Godot." Although I have read "Waiting for Godot" more than once in the past, the similarity between these two pieces didn't hit me until I was reminded of Beckett's play. After thinking about it, I looked further into it and noticed my thought wasn't too radical as other's suggested that Coetzee's title may very well allude to Beckett's play. Aside the similarities in title, the most obvious connection is the idea of waiting. Both pieces deal with waiting for someone (or someones in Coetzee's novel) that never arrives. Greater importance is placed on the waiting vs the arrival of the expected party. Therefore, the process of waiting and what happens while waiting is more important than the arrival. Just as Estragon and Vladimir in Beckett's play, the characters in Waiting for the Barbarians continuously wait for the arrival or attack from the barbarians that never happens.
Also, as the story in "Godot" progresses the play gets reduced and make less and less sense. Similarly, Waiting, in some ways, becomes reduced and more chaotic as the plot continues. For one, the magistrate physically gets reduced to nothing as he starves and his clothes become tattered. Furthermore, his location and possessions gets reduced from a nice office with basic luxuries to a dark, bare room. As far as senselessness goes, the citizen's becomes more frantic and senseless as they continue to wait to be attacked by the barbarians. One could argue that the magistrate senses begin to waiver.
Lastly in "Godot" the character's acknowledge the idea of leaving, but never get to leaving. It reminded me of how the Magistrate never leaves. One could argue that he had no where to go once he escaped, but I believe it is more than that. Something seemed to bind him to settlement and the citizen’s. This something is something outside of reason. It was the same something that Just as drew and attracted him to the blind barbarian women. I am curious, what people think this something is. Is it the violence he is attracted to, is it the exoticism, or does he simply feel guilt?
On a last note. I would like to mention that I also came across when I continued a poem with the same title (“Waiting for the Barbarians”) by Constantine P. Cavafy while looking into the importance of Coetzee’s novel. I personally was more drawn to the novels connection to “Godot,” but I believe the poem is just as important and interesting. I will provide a link to the poem below and welcome anyone to compare and contrast the poem to the novel who finds this source to the title more intriguing and clear. I will also provide a link to Beckett’s play for those who are interesting. Thanks for reading, and I look forward to any comments.

Samual Beckett's "Waiting for Godot"

ConStantine P. Cavafy's "Waiting for the Barbarians"

"In the Heart of the Country"

I just finished my second novel of Coetzee and would like to explore it further in this post. I actually had more questions than ideas and I would love to hear other's opionions/incite. First, I would like to mention that I did like this novel more than Dusklands. Both narrators (Eugene and Magda) were similiar in their random, unorganized style of talking. However, I found this novel easier to follow and more interesting. Additonally, both novels clearly explore the relationship of the colonizer and the colonized (granted in different ways). Also, this novel, like the second story in Dusklands, takes place in South Africa. Aside from the separation and tension between races, I believe this novel is little more subtle about its connection to colonalism and its relationship to Coetzee's past. I found it interesting how the novel was broken up and numbered into parts. It was almost like reading a dairy or experiencing random snap shots of different, yet connected, events. To be honest, I am not completely sure why Coetzee wrote this novel this way. Does anyone have any ideas what purpose this would have? I viewed it as the narrator's attempt to organize/control the chaos in her life; kind of like the way Eugene tried to so hard to grasp control over his life. I was also interested in the way the narrator would repeat and wither slightly alter or completely change what was being told. I almost wasn't sure what "really" was happening. I think that was the point though. I think it's Coetzee way to remind the audience that the novel is only a story and not fact. The novel is just a narrator telling a story and she decides what to say, how to say it, and how much of it to tell. Furthermore, I don't believe the minor details don't matter. Just as the location in Dusklands as not as important as the violence going on and still expresses the impact of colonalism.Whether with an axe or riffle, the narrator still kills her father, or at least thinks about it. The violence is still there no matter which version of the story is the "truth. " I'm curious what others thought of this technique and what they thought its purpose was? The last note I'd like to make is how body was used as a commodity. Magda must "pay" Hendrik with her body when she isn't able to pay him the money she owes. I found it interesting how the colonizer was forced to use their ownself as property and item of value, as usually the colonized is shown in this light. Did this strike anyone's attention in an interesting way? For now this is all the questions I have and welcome anyone's thoughts on the matter.

"Dusklands": A Look into Coetzee's First Novel

Today I'd like to discuss Coetzee's first novel Dusklands, which happens to also be the first book I have read of Coetzee. What initially intrigued me, before I began reading, was how the novel was divided into two short stories. Even after finishing the novel, this fact still interests me and I'd like to discuss it today.  Originally, I thought the two stories were different parts or view points of the same story. To my surprise, I found myself reading to “different” short peices. Each story is undoubtedly an amazing piece on its own, but what’s even more impressive is how these two very different stories work together and address the same issues. They are like two different voices, singing the same song. Although the two stories have different settings, plots and characters, both stories indirectly (or directly depending on how you see it) critiques the violence begotten by Imperialism and Colonialism. From what I have learned about the author and South Africa, I am certain that this novel must have emerged from Coetzee’s personal views and experiences with apartheid. I am not saying that his main and only purpose was to speak against apartheid, but that it was the inspiration for this novel. I think this novel looks at the bigger picture and analyzes the problems with the idea of one person/group imposing their beliefs, traditions, and/or power upon another person/group. The neagtive impacts of Colonialism is about the same, whether it is being done in Africa, Vietnam, or else where. It seems apparent that the time and place of these stories are of no real importance as far as the violence erupted by greed of power is concerned. As stated before, the basics remain the same, one person/group tries to suppress and overpower another person/group. Additionally, I liked the fact that this novel didn’t only focus on the typical victims of colonialism and violence. The novel shed light upon the negative impact the notion of colonialism has on both the “colonized” and the “colonizer”. There is both a physical and psyhological war going on. For example, it becomes clear in the first story that Eugene Dawn, through the exploration of his gradual descent to insanity, is as much as a victim as his son Martin and his wife Marilyn. The physical voilence done by "his people" during the Vietnam War psychologically damaged him and caused him to do a physical act of violence upon his own son. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on how the two stories are separate, yet very connected. Additionally I am interested in why people think Coetzee used this method and how having a novel made up of two “different” stories effects the overall impact of the novel.