J. M. Coetzee's 1986 novel Foe leaves its reader in a tumble of a multi-layered reality, confused
about literary original and copy, and, maybe most grave, confronted with the question: what is
historical truth and how can it be recognised. The veils that unfold and reveal the facets of fiction and
reality through the novel are many, and they are intricately woven into each other. We, the readers,
however educated and experienced with fictional texts, may find ourselves slightly confused after a
first reading.
Coetzee has written a parody1 of a classic of world literature: Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, first
published in 17192. The simple fact that Coetzee's work of fiction was first published in 19863 makes
it evident that it was based on the older classic. Yet the content of the novel claims the very opposite
when the female protagonist Susan Barton tells how the story really was before Mr Foe sat down to
turn it into a novel of his own intentions, altering and falsifying it. She tells her own story in the Iperspective,
in terms of the 'plot' even before the writer Mr Foe would have completed his
'Robinson Crusoe'. Through this, Coetzee creates the illusion that Susan Barton's report might have
indeed been the antecessor of the literary classic Robinson Crusoe.
Nevertheless, we are talking of a work of fiction here, so there is no doubt that Coetzee marvellously
plays with the means of storytelling instead of telling the world 'how it all really was'. There is no such
Robinson Crusoe as depicted both in Defoe's and Coetzee's novel - there is merely fiction, and one
should not confuse fiction and reality, however many layers of both seem to be mingled into each
other in Coetzee's novel.
1 A parody according to Linda Hutcheon is an: "imitation characterised by ironic inversion", or "repetition with
critical distance, which marks difference rather than simularity";
in: Linda Hutcheon, A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-Century Art Forms. New York and London:
Methuen, 1985, p.6
2 See: Bibliographical Note; in: Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe. London: Dent, 1975, p. xiii
3 First published in Great Britain by Martin Secker & Warburg 1986; here it will be referred to the Penguin
paperback edition of 1987 when quoting passages from the text.
Table of Contents
I. J.M. Coetzee's Foe: a literary parody with political attitude
[1] The spiderweb of fiction and reality
[2] Literature shaping cultural images - Robinson Crusoe and Colonialism
[3] Foe: the title as hints to the character of Coetzee's novel
[4] White South-African J.M. Coetzee writing on behalf of the 'voiceless'
II. Character alteration from Defoe to Foe
[1] Cruso: the anti-hero
[2] Introducing a female narrator - the character of Susan Barton
[3] Friday: the voiceless
III. Fiction and metafiction: how many layers does truth have?
Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to critically analyze J.M. Coetzee’s novel "Foe" as a literary and political parody of Daniel Defoe's "Robinson Crusoe". It explores how Coetzee reinterprets historical colonial narratives by introducing new perspectives, specifically focusing on the silencing of subaltern voices and the construction of identity through storytelling.
- The subversion of traditional colonial literary tropes
- Character deconstruction and moral ambiguity in "Cruso" vs "Crusoe"
- The function of Susan Barton as a female narrator and mediator
- The symbolic representation of Friday’s muteness as systemic oppression
- Metafictional explorations of truth, authorship, and historical representation
Excerpt from the Book
[1] The spiderweb of fiction and reality
J. M. Coetzee's 1986 novel Foe leaves its reader in a tumble of a multi-layered reality, confused about literary original and copy, and, maybe most grave, confronted with the question: what is historical truth and how can it be recognised. The veils that unfold and reveal the facets of fiction and reality through the novel are many, and they are intricately woven into each other. We, the readers, however educated and experienced with fictional texts, may find ourselves slightly confused after a first reading.
Coetzee has written a parody of a classic of world literature: Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, first published in 1719. The simple fact that Coetzee's work of fiction was first published in 1986 makes it evident that it was based on the older classic. Yet the content of the novel claims the very opposite when the female protagonist Susan Barton tells how the story really was before Mr Foe sat down to turn it into a novel of his own intentions, altering and falsifying it. She tells her own story in the I-perspective, in terms of the 'plot' even before the writer Mr Foe would have completed his 'Robinson Crusoe'. Through this, Coetzee creates the illusion that Susan Barton's report might have indeed been the antecessor of the literary classic Robinson Crusoe.
Nevertheless, we are talking of a work of fiction here, so there is no doubt that Coetzee marvellously plays with the means of storytelling instead of telling the world 'how it all really was'. There is no such Robinson Crusoe as depicted both in Defoe's and Coetzee's novel - there is merely fiction, and one should not confuse fiction and reality, however many layers of both seem to be mingled into each other in Coetzee's novel.
Summary of Chapters
I. J.M. Coetzee's Foe: a literary parody with political attitude: This chapter contextualizes the novel as a parody, examining how Coetzee challenges the historical authenticity of Defoe's original work and addresses colonial power structures.
II. Character alteration from Defoe to Foe: This section details the fundamental changes in the depiction of core characters, specifically analyzing the transformation of Crusoe into an anti-hero, the addition of Susan Barton, and the symbolism behind Friday’s silence.
III. Fiction and metafiction: how many layers does truth have?: The final chapter reflects on the novel's metafictional nature, arguing that literature acts as a tool for both shaping reality and questioning the reliability of historical narratives.
Keywords
J.M. Coetzee, Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe, Foe, Colonialism, Metafiction, Parody, Susan Barton, Friday, Apartheid, Historiography, Postmodernism, Identity, Narrative, Representation
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the literary relationship between Daniel Defoe's classic "Robinson Crusoe" and J.M. Coetzee's "Foe," focusing on how Coetzee uses parody to expose and critique the colonial ideologies embedded in the original text.
What are the primary thematic fields addressed?
The study revolves around colonialism, the politics of authorship, the silencing of minorities, gender representation, and the blurred boundaries between fiction, truth, and history.
What is the primary objective of this study?
The objective is to demonstrate how Coetzee’s "Foe" acts as an "eye-opener," using the character of Susan Barton and a muted Friday to provide a counter-narrative to the traditional European colonial perspective found in Defoe's work.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a comparative literary analysis, contrasting characters and narrative structures between the two novels and analyzing the text through the lens of political and historical context, particularly the Apartheid era in South Africa.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section investigates the alteration of character profiles, the role of the female narrator in subverting patriarchal storytelling, and the metaphorical significance of Friday’s lack of a tongue in the context of systemic oppression.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
The work is characterized by terms such as metafiction, colonial legacy, subaltern silence, rewriting, and literary deconstruction.
How does Coetzee’s depiction of Cruso differ from Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe?
Coetzee presents Cruso as an anti-hero who lacks the industrial ambition and religious religiosity of Defoe's protagonist, portraying him instead as an indifferent figure who exploits those around him without the mask of "humanist" benevolence.
What is the symbolic significance of the character Susan Barton?
Susan Barton serves as a mediator and narrator who initially functions within the patriarchal structures of colonial storytelling but ultimately struggles to gain autonomy and control over the authorship of her own narrative.
Why does the author interpret Friday’s muteness as a political statement?
The author interprets Friday’s missing tongue as a metaphor for the systemic silencing of oppressed indigenous groups, specifically paralleling the erasure of the black South African voice during the Apartheid era.
- Quote paper
- Luise A. Finke (Author), 1998, Daniel Defoe's 'Robinson Crusoe' and J.M. Coetzee's 'Foe': Characters in Comparison, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/21433
