The Role of Silence in Coetzee's "Foe"

Since I will be doing a presentation on Foe this week and the use of silence (mainly with the character of Friday), I wanted to talk about it in a post. My favorite article I came across was Mike Marais’s “Disarming Silence.” In this article, Marais starts by stating the two opposing views of Coetzee’s use of silence in the novel. Silence can be seen as either an “ancient language of defeat” (as Rushdie refers to it in Shame) or something that enables and empowers the other. Both arguments are compelling are equally arguable. One could argue that Friday didn’t choose to have his tongue cut out and therefore he was forced to silence. However, I side with Marais and the idea that silence is empowering and asserts Friday’s freedom. I say this because, although Friday didn’t choose to have his tongue cut out (if that is what really happened), he does choose to not speak or participate in Susan Barton’s attempts to get him to tell his story. Yes, one can suggest he simply doesn’t understand and can not participate in Barton’s attempts to get him to “speak.” However, there is just as much evidence suggesting otherwise. I will give examples of two scenes to keep this post from running on too long.

First I’d like to look at the scene where Barton tries to teach Friday language and get him to tell his story. It also a scene Marais analyzes in his essay.
         “I reached out and took him by the chin and turned his face toward me. His eyelids opened.  
           Somewhere in the deepest recesses of those black pupils was there a spark of mockery?
           I could not see it. But if it were there, would it not be an African spark, dark to my English 
           eye” (147).
Here Barton questions whether Friday is too clueless learn or if he is just playing dumb. It is also after this encounter, as Marais points out, that Susan exclaims “Mr. Foe I must have my freedom!” (147). Here, Barton’s interaction with Friday and his ‘refusal’ to speak seems to challenge her freedom, and not his.

Another example comes from an earlier scene, when Barton comments on how her silence symbolizes power (because she chooses what to say and what to keep silent) while Friday’s silence symbolizes powerlessness because “no matter what he is to himself…what he is to the world is what I make of him (122). Except he isn’t what she makes of him. He seems to have control over her. Barton’s says it easy for her to make up Friday’s story and pass it as fact, but yet she is unable to do so. She is obsessed with Friday’s silence and continual yearns to have him tell his story. Through their relationship and Barton’s obsession to have Friday tell his story portray Friday as the one in control of the situation.

I hope you find this as interesting as I did and, as always, I’d love to hear anyone’s thoughts on the matter J

Going Beyond Race: "Life and Times of Michael K"

While reading Life and Times of Michael K I found myself taking note of the levels of racism and discrimination taking place and the allusions the novel made to South Africa. However, I later realized, upon reflection, that although race is hinted in the novel, it is never directly referred to. Therefore, the reader is never really told Michael's race and there are no racial slurs provided in the narration that directly point to a race. Furthermore, in terms of politics, declaration of race is left out. Throughout the book the race Michael “belongs” to is always referred to as a vague whole (such as the plural “you,” “we, ” and your people). I don't think there is any doubt that Michael is black man in South Africa during apartheid, but I do find it interesting how Coetzee gets this message across. And aside from the reference to “Cape Town,” which you wouldn’t know unless you were familiar with South Africa, and the mention of rusks, Coetzee manages to once again avoid pin pointing location. Seeing that this is a pattern in all the other novels I have read so far, I was not surprised to see it in this novel. Coetzee’s great talent and skills as a writer is apparent in the way he is easily able to get information across without flat out telling it. Also, the avoidance of specifics adds to the bigger picture. Coetzee novels focus on the treatment of people, norms, and morality. The location, race, etc are all secondary. This is seen in the way the view of Michael and his treatment goes beyond race, as his deformity plays a bigger part. His own mother saw him a little less than human because of his cliff lip and “slowness.” She even sends him away until she finds that she need him. Therefore something beyond race is going on. Furthermore, like Coetzee would say, his stories are just stories, therefore the specific location, race and correct representation of facts doesn’t matter. I hope this idea of the absences of race is as interesting to others as it was to me.


Side note: I didn’t want to mention this in my main post since it is a completely different subject, but I wanted to provide the information to those who might find it useful: Michael K may be a reference to Josef K. in The Trial by Franz Kafka. There are also other references to the author and book if anyone is interested in doing further research in this are.