Five Answers to Waiting

1. Could the novel be improved by naming the setting and the two parties (the imperialists and the barbarians)? Or is it best to imagine this encounter happening anywhere in the world?

I really do not think the novel would be improved by naming the setting and the two parties. While it would allow us to visualize a setting, I think it would take away a crucial aspect of the novel.  By simply naming the two parties: the Empire and the barbarians, it lets the story be transferred in any readers’ backgrounds.  The story in Waiting for the Barbarians is almost a universal one.  Who cannot connect to imperialism and destruction?  By keeping the names unspecific, Coeztee allows readers from all different cultures to feel a personal connection to the novel, almost like it could be talking about their history.

2. What questions does Coetzee raise about truth and history?

This question immediately makes me think of the exchange between the Magistrate and the Colonel on page 131.  The Magistrate tells the Colonel that, “You are the enemy… History will bear me out!” to which the Colonel replies, “Nonsense, there will be no history, the affair is too trivial.”  I think this exchange very much speaks to the writing of history and the truth of it.  While the Magistrate believes that history will save him, the Colonel is not concerned in the slightest.  I think that Coetzee is trying to make the point that history is written by the victors.  The Magistrate might believe history will prove his point, but the Colonel knows that the Empire will not want this in their history.  Coetzee raises the questions of what really happened in our past and what is left out of our history books.  Can we believe everything that history tells us?  Or are tragedies glazed over to be forgotten?

3. Why does he go to the granary to see the prisoners who the Colonel has tortured?

The Magistrate goes to the granary to see the prisoners who the Colonel has tortured because he is curious as to what happened to them and feels guilty about their fate.  When these prisoners first arrive, he knows they are neither barbarians nor a threat to the Empire.  The Magistrate pleads with the Colonel stating, "Perhaps that is the truth.  No one would have brought an old man and a sick boy along on a raiding party" (4).  Nevertheless, the Magistrate stands aside and lets the Colonel torture them even though it is against his better judgement.  When the old man is killed, the Magistrate senses a discrepancy between the soldiers statement and the Colonel.  I believe he goes to the granary after this partially to find out the truth of what really happened and partially because is angry at himself for standing aside and letting the Colonel harm those whom he believed were innocent.

4. Why do you believe the barbarians never strike back? 

I believe that the barbarians never strike back because they are not the dangerous and aggressive people that the Empire believes they are.  The Empire has already forced them to move off of their land and live somewhere else - the barbarians are simply protecting themselves and their new way of life.  They are not interested in a war with the Empire, they just want to go on living.  I think that their true nature shows in the way that they avoid face-to-face conflict.  For example, when the soldiers send out an army to hunt down the barbarians, they let the elements of the wilderness protect them.  The soldiers state, "We froze in the mountains! We starved in the desert!  They lured us on an on, we could never catch them." (170 - 171).  They know that the layout of the land is on their side and the barbarians trust that the army will self destruct.  This proves to be a good tactic, since even though the barbarians never directly strike, they drive out the Empire's army and "win". 

5.  Why does the magistrate find it necessary to risk everything in order to bring the girl back to "her people"?  What is he proving, and to who is he proving it?

The Magistrate finds it necessary to risk everything in order to bring the girl back to "her people" because he wants to prove that he is not like the Empire and the Colonel.  However, I do not think that he is trying to prove this to the town or even to himself, but to the girl.  Before he decides to make the trip back, the girl and the Magistrate have two conversations. The first conversation the Magistrate asks about the period after her imprisonment and she replies, "Yes, there were other men.  I did not have a choice.  That was how it had to be." (64).  The second conversation they have is when the girl acknowledges she knows he visits other girls and says, "Do you also treat them like this?" (63).  I think this is when the Magistrate begins to realize how the girl views him: as just another one of the people of the Empire who is taking advantage of her.  I believe before this, the Magistrate saw himself as the girl's savior; someone who took her off of the streets and gave her food and a place to live.  He does not like this other image she has of him.  As a result of these conversations, the Magistrate decides to take the girl back to her people.  He wants to prove to her that he is different and has different morals.