J .M .Coetzee's Foe (Th)

 Hello 👋

I am Maya Batiya, A student of M.A. sem 3 in department of English MKBU.

Thinking Activity 🤔 

This blog is a part of thinking activity task of comparative and critical analysis of Daniel Defoe’s ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and J. M. Coetzee’s ‘Foe’. 

∆ J. M. Coetzee : 

J.M. Coetzee (born February 9, 1940, Cape Town, South Africa) is a South African novelist, critic, and translator noted for his novels about the effects of colonization. In 2003 he won the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Coetzee was educated at the University of Cape Town (B.A., 1960; M.A., 1963) and the University of Texas (Ph.D., 1969). An opponent of apartheid, he nevertheless returned to live in South Africa, where he taught English at the University of Cape Town, translated works from the Dutch, and wrote literary criticism. He also held visiting professorships at a number of universities.

∆ Foe  

J. M Coetzee’s Foe is considered as the intertext of Robinson Crusoe, the eighteenth century classic text by the master craftsman Daniel Defoe. In Foe the Crusoe story is just an episode in the narrative of Susan Barton, a woman castaway who shares the island experience along with Cruso and his man servant Friday. Foe raises the question of identity and subjectivity in a postcolonial entity. Foe exemplifies all the narrative and stylistic features of Coetzean creativity. From his eponymous status in the patriarchal narrative, Cruso just gets reduced into a character in a section of Susan’s story. Foe challenges the institution of patriarchy and colonialism from the text’s overtly postcolonial and feminist positions and also offers a textual revision of the entire ideological world of Defoean fictional realm.

Foe as an intertext of Robinson Crusoe problematizes the issue of women in all its diverse forms. But the finale of the novel suggests a “maze of doubting” (Foe 135) where the world of the feminine and the feminist conflate with the world of the postcolonial whose voices have been appropriated and manipulated by the same power structures albeit various ways. The contention here is that Foe celebrates the Other, the half colonized Other and the genuine Other and when their submerged voices emerge from the wreck or the abyss where the two discourses conflate in a rare but pertinent manner, it is the colonialist or the patriarch who takes a back stage, losing their dominant discourses among the uncertain infinity of ‘O’mega. If Friday is the figure of postcolonial resistance, Susan Barton undoubtedly offers the feminist saga of the text.Her mode of resistance is more conspicuous than that of her postcolonial counterpart. The subtle resistance and the challenge of Friday sometimes submerge the violent upheaval of Susan’sdiscourse. Feminist concern is underplayed and sometimes used in complicity with the colonial design to thwart the cause of postcolonial silence in Foe. The problematization of the postcolonial is shouldered by the feminist and the feminist discourse loses its cutting edge on the way.

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

Ans :

comparative and critical analysis of Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe and Foe by J.M. Coetzee, you might focus on several major points discussed in class, highlighting how Coetzee reimagines and critiques Defoe's classic narrative. 

1. Colonialism and the Power Dynamics of Storytelling

Defoe’s Perspective:

 In Robinson Crusoe, Defoe portrays Crusoe as the ultimate colonial figure, a man who imposes his will on the island and its inhabitants, such as Friday. The relationship with Friday reflects a colonial mindset where Crusoe assumes a paternalistic role.

Coetzee’s Critique: 

Foe revisits these themes, exploring the silencing of marginalized voices. The character Friday in Foe is rendered speechless, symbolizing the erasure of the colonized voice in traditional narratives. Coetzee’s work emphasizes how colonial narratives ignore or rewrite the perspectives of the oppressed.

2. Rewriting and the Role of the Author

Defoe's Omniscient Narrative:

 Defoe’s work establishes Crusoe as the dominant storyteller of his own experience, presenting a seamless, linear narrative that reinforces his control over the narrative.

Coetzee’s Meta-Narrative: 

In Foe, Coetzee disrupts the authority of the author by introducing a meta-narrative. The character Susan Barton tries to tell her story, but the “author” character Foe reshapes it, highlighting the selective nature of storytelling and the role of the author in shaping history and perception.

3. Gender and Silence

Absence of Women in Robinson Crusoe:

 Defoe’s novel largely excludes female perspectives, focusing instead on masculine adventure and survival.

Susan Barton’s Role in Foe: 

Coetzee introduces Susan Barton as a protagonist, challenging the traditionally male-centered adventure narrative. Her struggle to narrate her story without male intervention (through Foe) reflects how women’s voices are often mediated or suppressed in historical narratives.

4. Language and Communication

Language as Power in Robinson Crusoe:

 Crusoe teaches Friday English, symbolizing his control over Friday and reinforcing the colonial power dynamic through language.

Friday’s Silence in Foe: 

In Foe, Friday’s silence is an act of resistance against linguistic colonization. Coetzee uses this silence to emphasize the limits of language in representing marginalized experiences and to critique the reliance on language as the sole means of self-expression and control.

5. Reality vs. Fiction and the Unreliable Narrator

Crusoe’s Perspective as Absolute: 

Defoe presents Crusoe’s narrative as a straightforward, factual account, reinforcing a realist tradition where readers are encouraged to accept Crusoe’s view as authoritative.

Questioning Reality in Foe:

Coetzee’s novel blurs the boundaries between fact and fiction, questioning the “reality” of any narrative. Susan’s struggles to convey her version of events, coupled with Foe’s revisions, challenge readers to consider how narratives are constructed and question the reliability of the storyteller.

6. Identity, Isolation, and the Self

Individualism in Robinson Crusoe: 

Crusoe is portrayed as a self-sufficient individual, often interpreted as embodying Enlightenment ideals of individualism and self-reliance.

Fragmented Identity in Foe: 

Coetzee presents identity as something more fluid and fragmented. Susan’s identity is intertwined with her relationship to Foe and Friday, challenging the notion of a coherent, self-contained self and highlighting how one’s identity is often constructed by external forces, including societal and cultural narratives.

These points illustrate how Foe acts as a postcolonial and postmodern response to Robinson Crusoe, engaging in a dialogue that exposes the underlying biases, silences, and power structures in Defoe's text.

7.Postmodern Critique in Foe

Coetzee employs metafiction to deconstruct the narrative certainty of Robinson Crusoe. By questioning who controls the narrative and whose stories are worth telling, Foe invites readers to reconsider the reliability and ethics of historical and literary representation.

∆Conclusion

While Robinson Crusoe embodies the triumph of colonial and capitalist ideology, Foe interrogates its assumptions, offering a nuanced and critical perspective on storytelling, power, and identity. Coetzee’s novel serves as both a homage to and a critique of Defoe’s classic, emphasizing the ongoing relevance of postcolonial and feminist critiques in re-examining literary traditions.

Thank you.. 🍁🍂🍁