1. Obviously the establishment of Empire vs. Barbarian suggests something to the portrayal of White vs. Blacks in South Africa, and to the horrors of their mistreatment. One of the feelings that emerges in Coetzee's writing is that this is inescapable. There does not seem to be a world outside the Empire that would be aware of the Empire's horrific treatment of others. Perhaps this is also Coetzee's point--that there was no outside world that saw, or listened to the atrocities of apartheid. It's unclear to me whether or not this is divergent, but missing those outside the empire and outside of South Africa seems an interesting direction to examine this divergence.
2. The narrator's two relationships early in the novel reflect a conflict of desire, it seems, as well as a lack of empathy. The narrator is both fascinated and disgusted by the 'barbarian' woman. But there is also an element of humility in the way that he washes her feet. It is both an act of servitude, but also one of selfishness. For in the rhythm he loses himself and finds something cathartic. Leaving her bed for the the woman who, he knows, lies to him about being happy to see him and enjoying having sex with him, also seems to show a difference between the two women: one honest, raw, real, one an escape.
3. Coetzee is extremely attentive to the treatment of the horses as they ride them, to death, effectively. He is descriptive of their behavior, their hunger. Coetzee's own animal rights activism suggests that he considers humans and animals to be on an equal level. This is part of the reason why people are constantly described or move with animalistic qualities--Joll's insect-like eyes, the way the tortured narrator is described like a scrounging dog, etc.
4. Coetzee's prisoner scene manifests a blending that occurs throughout the novel. What is barbaric? What is civilized? Do we think of them in terms of technological dominance and perceived superiority? The barbarous mistreatment and complete lack of empathy to other human suffering, the blood-thirst of the empire shows how Coetzee suggests that barbaric and civilized are meaningless, relative terms, as the Empire uses them. The only acts of violence ever seen committed in the novel are by the Empire's soldiers and most of them are torturous and horrific in nature.
5. The narrator strikes me as a very mixed individual through the first half of the novel. He is self-interested much of the time, but sometimes compassionate--washing the woman's feet, trying to find food and shelter for the first two prisoners that Joll brings in. Whether his treatment and humiliation makes up for anything I think becomes kind of meaningless. What is done to him is awful, regardless of who he is. He is certainly not a martyr figure, by any means. Coetzee does this consciously I think, showing the reader that human beings are not wholly kind or good, and nor are the 'barbarians' when the narrator meets with them in the mountains, but regardless there are certain levels of mistreatment that Coetzee suggests we inexcusably inflict on other human beings. Regardless of how morally good or bad they are, Coetzee seems to view this treatment as inherently wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment