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.
Alice, I, too, was aware of the fact that Coetzee never gives a direct statement of Michael K's race. I actually was wondering if he was considered a lower class white person because he was sent to Huis Norenius, the state funded school for those seriously afflicted and unfortunate (4). I figured since the state was providing for the schooling that perhaps his racial status was more than black.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to your thoughts of Coetzee's ambiguity to the location, I actually felt that this novel was taking place in South Africa. The references to many to South African locations (Cape Town, Prince Albert, etc.) led me to beleive we were traversing the many places of South Africa, even though Coetzee's general descriptions of the land itself are vague and often times ambiguous.
Hi Alice, I read your post and I definitely agree with the idea that race is secondary in the novel and that really what Coetzee is trying to get at is the the lack of empathy people feel during a war. I am currently into reading narratives of the Holocaust and found many similarities with The Life and Times of Michael K. For example, the desperateness of people during war time and how they are often more likely to look out for themselves even if they have a chance to help family. I think a lot of the characters in the novel have a survivor mentality where they are selfish because they do not know if they can survive on what they have until the next day. I think this idea for me is epitomized in the beginning when Michael K states, "someone is bound to stop for us" but we find that most people ignore them and only "(watch) them roll past in silence." (The Life and Times of Michael K., pg. 21) Very rarely do people care enough to stop or to even offer food. Of course, this is not to say that Coetzee presents a very grim portrait and in fact Michael K. does encounter some decent people along his way, but what I think the book is trying to get at is that in war time, or in a crisis of any kind, kind people become a rarity and people who take advantage of others are more abundant. So in this way I think also that the concept of morality is brought into question by Coetzee, it is simply a social construct that seems to be the first to go out the window when we humans feel threaten by something.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am not sure that I agree that Michael K is treated as less than human, although he is mistreated a lot of the time because people think of him as daft. I believe it is more that he is deemed as weak and therefore appears to others as easy to control or to take advantage of, when in reality this is not true. Again I think this has a lot to do with the "survivor" mentality where people are looking to use the weak to further their own survival. Michael K on the other hand has a much different mentality and even though he too wishes to survive he wishes to do it through his own means without using people, or pushing others around, like many have do to him in the novel. Nevertheless, I agree that there is an universality in what Coetzee is doing in this book, because if I could find similaries in Holocaust narratives and you in Kafka's The Trial, it seems to me that he is writing about an occurance that is very human.
@Tiffany Gray: I think it is very interesting how you felt the novel suggested Michael may be white. Just last week I talked to someone else who said they were sure he was white until some reference mid novel that made them “realize” that he was black. I find this amazing (not that I’m saying it’s absurd) because from the very beginning I was convinced Michael was black. Actually, I didn’t realize that race wasn’t mentioned until I reflected on it a lot later in the novel. As for the location, I agree with you. The names referred to in the book clearly belong to South Africa. I think the way you put it is more accurate and correct. The place is South Africa, but the details are still vague. Also, as Prof Barnard pointed out, it is interesting how Coetzee’s other novel practically don’t even mention South Africa, yet refer to and have a lot to do with South Africa and apartheid, while this novel clearly is in South Africa, yet doesn’t really have to do with South Africa and apartheid. Thanks for your thoughts and for pointing out that the novel undoubtedly takes place in South Africa J
ReplyDelete@ K. G. Silva: Thanks for sharing many of the ideas you had concerning my post and Michael. I agree with many of the points you made. Furthermore, I am not surprised that you noticed similar characteristics between this novel and Holocaust narratives. However, I still firmly believe that Michael is seen and treated as less than human in the novel. Perhaps you misunderstand me because of my use of the phrase “less than human.” Let me try to better explain myself. By less than human, I don’t mean he is seen as an animal, although I am sure someone could easily argue that, but what I meant was that he is seen as defected, deformed, abnormal, and inferior to most “normal” humans. He is almost subhuman. I was just highlighting how the view of Michael and how he is treated goes beyond race. He isn’t just seen as being beneath whites (for being black), but also as being beneath human in general, as other blacks (including his mother) see him as intellectually and physically inferior to them. Aside from his mother sending him away until she needs him, this is clearly seen in her reaction to Michael’s appearance after giving birth to him. There is also many times when the narrator or other characters question his mental capacity solely based on his appearance. For others to use him and abuse him, or see him as “weak” and “daft” as you put it, without feeling that they are wrong, the must place view him as being less than “human” to justify not giving him the same respect and rights as others. And although Coetzee may be writing on how human Michael is and about something “really human” that does not mean that the characters see that. What Coetzee believes and what his character’s believe is too different things. I think Coetzee shows how “human” Michael is and how, how he is being treated is wrong, by showing the reader the way others judge him based on his appearance as if he was less than human. I am happy you had a different opinion as it clearly sparked my interest and gave us something interesting to debate about. Thanks again for your insight!