Answers

1.) Why is the empire called the "Empire" instead of given a specific name?
This recalls the idea that this situation could—and does—happen anywhere. By not including specifics (including most names, specifically a place or a time period) within the novel, Coetzee emphasizes that imperialism as well as oppression or even slavery is a human concern—not a specific occurrence.  This also calls attention to the concept of the “other”. We do not know much about the barbarians or why the Empire dislikes them—only that these two groups are so different. This seems to make a larger comment on human nature—that often times we dislike a group or hate a race simply because they are not us.

2.) Is Coetzee making more of a statement about man's inner beast, or a political statement? Or both?
I definitely think that Coetzee is making a statement about both the conflicts within ourselves as well as with other groups. The very personal nature of the first person narration suggests that we should pay close attention to his inner dialogue--what he believes, what he thinks of certain occurences. However, we cannot ignore the political ramifications of this clearly polarized situation. The downfall of the magistrate suggests what may (or perhaps should) happen to people with oppressive power over others. 

3.) When the blind girl says “Yes, there were other men. I did not have a choice…”(61) do you believe she includes him in this category?

I absolutely believe that she includes him. We cannot forget that she is staying with him as—essentially—a slave. She attends to his needs such as feeding, clothing, as well as his sexual desires. Even though we see an affectionate side to his actions, she is merely involved because she has to be. this is why there is no tearful goodbye when he leaves the town of the Barbarians with her there—this was not a consensual relationship.

4.) 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?

I believe that he is risking all of this in order to bring her back because he felt guilty for the relationship that they had. He recognizes that keeping her there is exploitation—similar to all of the relations that the Empire has with the Barbarians. He is starting to feel remorse for it (which leads to his eventual downfall).

 5.)     Does the downfall of the narrator and the humiliation he feels ethically “make up” for the damage he did as a magistrate? 

Coetzee clearly wrote a “redemption novel”, one in which the narrator realizes the error of their ways and eventually gets punished for this. However, he wrote one that I believe is very close to reality in that the others around him do not recognize the errors and do not give him the redemption that he wants. The reader should recognize that the narrator truly feels bad for his choices, but this does not mean that he never treated others badly. 

Responses

5. Despite his wishes to recount the events that have taken place over the course of a year, the Magistrate says, "Of all the people of this town I am the one least fitted to write a memorial. Better the blacksmith with his cries of rage and woe" (155). What does Coetzee seem to suggest about how we record history? What are the stories we hear and what are the stories we want to hear? How do we comfort ourselves and unnerve ourselves through storytelling?

This part of the novel reminded me a lot of the end of Beloved; we have narrators who don’t seem confident in their story and its significance. In this case, the Magistrate doesn’t feel that he is fit to write the story because of his position in the society as well as his personal investment in the girl. If he is the one to write the story, he knows that he will shape it with his own biases, even if he doesn’t mean to. Coetzee seems to suggest that the wrong people are writing history; even our humbled Magistrate is still the powerful ‘white’ man in a government position. The story being told by an average person could carry more important details because it is more likely that his story would be shared by the population. Further, it seems that the Magistrate should have said that the girl or one of the barbarians needed to write part of the story, but they don’t even get the chance. Coetzee may be showing us how one-sided history really tends to be. We comfort ourselves by belittling our evil actions and pretending they are justified. The point of view through which history is told almost always casts the best possible light on the teller, whether they are the ‘good guys’ or not.

Why do you think the Magistrate is interested in the ruins, and if he is truly fascinated with them why does he have others work on the excavation?

I think the Magistrate is interested in the ruins because he, in part, understands how time will win over any empire. Whoever occupied the ruins before could have been just like his empire, but now they are lost and gone, and who knows what impact they have had. This leads to his interest in their language, as he tries to uncover a history like the one he decides to write.

3. When it comes to the quote “I wish that these barbarians would rise up and teach us a lesson, so that we would learn to respect them” (58) do you see this as hopeful, naïve, a passing fancy etc.? How does this quote match up with others that appear in the first part of the novel?

I think the quote is an important look into the Magistrate’s mind; we can see that he is struggling with his position in the conflict, and understands, in part, the plight of the barbarians. The quote this brings to mind is: “'only because if you get lost it becomes our task here to find you and bring you back to civilization.' We pause, savoring from our different positions the ironies of the word." The Magistrate understands that barbarity and civilization are relative.

4. What is the purpose of failing to name most characters or places, or even the time period, in this novel?

I think Coetzee does this to keep the themes of the novel universal. Imperialism is easy to relate to for any reader because he or she can identify with either the barbarians or the conquerors, if not both. I think there is a flaw, though, in that he could have made a more powerful statement and possibly had a more meaningful impact if he had given clues or names as to which parties he had on his mind. This seems to be a trend in Nobel Prize winners: they will toe the line, but they don’t seem to ever call anyone out up front.

5.       Discuss the ending of the novel; especially what is the significance between the Magistrate’s dream and the children building the snowman?

I think that the change in the dream from the children building castles to building a snowman is just a comment on hopes for the future. Maybe the future human race won’t be obsessed with territory and castles and empires, but actually care about one another and work to build a better race, not a better domain.

Q&A -JK

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

There are numerous times during which the idea of what is happening in the novel will never be remembered by those later on, that it is not important enough to be considered part of history. What has to happen for something to be seen as important? Does this fit into the notion that “the winners write history”?

2. How do the ruins and lost language come into play in the novel? Is there any relationship to the presence of the ruins and the idea we have discussed as time as both a linear and cyclical path?

I see it as a way that we idealize the past; once it is gone we place value on it. The ruins are considered interesting yet the Magistrate knows that they are killing people who could have been linked to those who created the buildings. The blind girls native language is not mentioned until she is about to leave forever.  The ruins are a part of the past that could be cherished but is being used as punishment.

3. What is the purpose of failing to name most characters or places, or even the time period, in this novel?

Without the names the occurrences within the book can be placed in different places, throughout different times, for the violence and destruction of populations has occurred worldwide. The vagueness makes it easier to input the readers’ knowledge of such actions.

4. What can be said of the two relationships that the narrator is juggling in the first half of the novel?

The Magistrate was trying to connect with the barbarian girl and the Colonel. With the two relationships negating each other he is not able to fully connect with either.

5. The Magistrate begins the book discussing how content he is with his life, and slowly begins more and more unhappy. Why does this occur?

The discussions on his content nature did not seem to be laid on a strong foundation. The Magistrate continually wished that he could be left alone, but it seems as if that has not been the case for a while. Change has been coming and his distaste is (at least at first) not in the horrors occurring but the fact that he has to be involved, it is as if he knows ignorance is bliss but is too far involved to be able to commit to such a life.  

1) Why do the barbarians never strike back?
The barbarians never strike back because, following the Cavafy poem, they're meant to represent this body of existence that merits obsession, fear, and "kind of a solution." However, the fact that they never show up is a statement. It raises the question do they really deserve this kind of attention? Or should we live and let live. It kind of represents so many relationships between one person or nation, and another-that little of which is known about. It reflects peoples' paranoia or neurosis.
2) What is the significance of the police officers' glasses? Compare the effect of these lenses and the window of his car near the end to his opinion of the townspeople and barbarians.
The glasses, and the car window, serve a similar function in that they are meant to divide, separate-physically-Joll from those around him. Further, I believe the glasses are meant to question his authority and competence since they are referred to constantly as those a blind man might wear. One can then clearly make a connection between the glasses and his lack of mastery and wonder if he is actually blindly leading.
3) Why is the Empire called "The Empire"and not given a specific name?
It's to create a sense of timelessness. This way the Empire and all of its actions can be related to across time.
4) Are all novels of oppression, e.g., this one, 1984, and Heart of Darkness fundamentally similar in their protagonists' character development?
I'm not sure I can speak for every novel of this genre, however, of these listed above I'd say there is an evident parallel and themes between them all. Certainly we see a character outraged with the status quo, awakened in a way, and begins to question along an existential line the methods of the world which they live in, as they even may rise up. Especially in Heart of Darkness and Waiting For The Barbarians we see mans inner beast and moral questioned.
5) What questions does Coetzee raise about truth and history?
I'm guessing Coetzee is inquiring about the legitimacy of history, and probing the convoluted-ness of it, and truth. Is history written by the victors? Or those who are more interested, since the "barbarians" seem to have no interest. Further, the Empire, or the scribes of history, are more civilized. Is there and exclusive connection between the most civilized and the victors of war?

Questions and Answers

 "'I ask,' I continue, 'only because if you get lost it becomes our task here to find you and bring you back to civilization.' We pause, savoring from our different positions the ironies of the word." How does this quote from page 13 explain larger ideas and themes in the novel? Isn't it odd that the two can find irony in 'the word,' but still continue to play their roles in the novel?

The Magistrate and Joll's different senses of "civilization" refer back to their positions in the novel's semiotic square, which I discuss in my own response; our protagonist may categorized as representing the not uncivilized, hence his mocking, sardonic use, and the Colonel as the not civilized, explaining his grave belief in the term as it applies to the Empire, and his sneering against those foolishly classify the barbarian culture as such. The ironies are different, not shared. In order to play their roles in the novel, the two must construe "civilization" differently; the Magistrate's heroic position as He Who Rebels and Joll's as He Who Follows necessitate that they must enter into conflict over such abstract concepts as "civilization" in order for the narrative to work. 

Coetzee links torture and sex as acts of a highly intimate nature, going as far as to have his narrator suggest that he might have been jealous of Colonel Joll for being able to inflict something permanent upon the 'Barbarian' Girl. What, if any, implications do you see in this concept, with regards to human interest in sexuality and in connecting with other people?

Unlike virginity which, when taken, leaves no visible trace evidence on the individual's exterior, the girl's scars are a permanent, and not the source of pleasure. For one as sinister as Joll, rape would not be a crime of pleasure to begin with, but her scar tells all that he made her suffer, despite the wealth of unseen psychological damage. Humans are inherently insecure about the impact they make on others, and the fact that what is seen is more easily believed, Joll's injuring of the girl seems perfectly logical and painfully human on his part. Also, it is the one part of her the Magistrate cannot purify, unlike her feet and body. 

Is Coetzee making more of a statement about man's inner beast, or a political statement? Or both?

Aren't all political statement's about man's bestial side? After all, they are not mutually exclusive genres. Coetzee's statement is more about the confluence of man's darker nature (men like Joll) meeting political power (The Empire) and the resulting banality of evil (Third Bureau) the culture can create. The Third Bureau's shadowy nature and its faceless, "official" moniker tell little of its nature. Also, we cannot overlook its name connection to the Third Reich. Coetzee's statement falls along these lines: imperialism thrives because the colonizing nation ties abuses of natives to their own esteem as a superior, more successful nation; their politics reflect a "higher mind." However, this thought system requires narcissism, xenophobia, and ruthlessness, which in order to further the national cult of superiority, must insidiously spread among the populace, making the Empire's savagery against the barbarians rational insofar as it proves the Empire to be the guiding nation of the world. 

Consider the ruins the Magistrate likes to excavate- he uses the excavation as a punishment for soldiers and criminals, but his interest in the ruins is does not continue throughout the book. Why does his interest in them dissipate?

His interest in those ruins depends on the destruction and dissolution of the civilization in which they originated. The Magistrate is indebted to the civilizations -- Western or otherwise -- who through total war annihilated the region's existing culture to the point where it could only exist underground. His interest in these excavations wanes because he understands his position as one of the many cogs in the imperialist machine that is the Empire, a nation devoted to assimilating others at the expense of the conquered's culture. The homogeneity of his culture erases anything special or aesthetically unique about the colonialized natives. His anthropological hobby is a study of death and decomposition. 

When it comes to the quote “I wish that these barbarians would rise up and teach us a lesson, so that we would learn to respect them” (58) do you see this as hopeful, naïve, a passing fancy etc.? How does this quote match up with others that appear in the first part of the novel?

For the barbarians to turn insurgent against the Empire would debase their relative nobility. Marxist criticism teaches that   revolutionary systems of thought cannot think outside of the ideology against which they rebel, and the barbarians, in taking arms, would prove themselves to be on equal footing with the brutal warfare of the Third Bureau. No longer deserving of glory for their nonviolent politics, the natives would then fulfill the Orientalist binary used to oppress them -- they would be savages. There is a double bind here, for by remaining passive, they reveal themselves to be, as the binary perpetuates, cowardly. The quote recalls the Magistrate's fury at Joll at the detainees, screaming "Did no one tell him these are fishing people?...Do these people look like a danger to the Empire?" (19). They demand the barbarians to conform the binary they've created for them, despite their complete and total ignorance of their aggressor's ideology. 

Answers to 5 Questions

1) What is the significance of the police officers glasses? Compare the effect of these lenses and the window of his car near the end to his opinion of the townspeople and barbarians.
The officer's glasses represent the distance between the officer and the town in general, as well as the officer's views and the magistrate's specifically. The officer is bloodthirsty and confrontational, while the town in general seems happy to go about their own ways and be content in their own world. The officer does not see their ways as legitimate and the glasses represent the blockage between the government from the capital and the people, particularly the magistrate. Finally, toward the end, the officer makes eye contact with the magistrate through the glass of the carriage. It was the first time the magistrate can see the officer's clear blue eyes, since the glasses he wore were tinted to shield his eyes from the sun.

2. Discuss the irony on page 114 when the guard describes the barbarians and says "their way is to creep up behind you and stick a knife in your back" since clearly, they have been doing nothing of the sort and the Empire invaded them without warning.
In this quote, the guard is describing exactly what the government does to the magistrate. Even when the magistrate is locked up, they ignore him and torture him more mentally than physically, which is an indirect, cowardly way to deal with another human, like the barbarians that the guard is describing. The guards hardly questioned the magistrate, and no matter how logical his explanation was, the government would not have listened or believed him. The magistrate's own government condemned him.

3.  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 is supposedly trying to right a wrong made by the government officials. The magistrate believes the girl will be happy if she is back with her own people and her family. However, he is also trying to prove, to her and himself, that his people are good people, and the government officials that were there are not accurate representations of the town's beliefs and values. On a deeper level, he is trying to convince himself that he is a pure person with only the best intentions for mankind.

4. What is the purpose of failing to name most characters or places, or even the time period, in this novel?
By keeping details that would make this town more identifiable vague, Coetzee is stating that this corrupt, ignorant government can, and probably does, exist anywhere. Almost any reader would be able to find similarities to several governments and events throughout history all over the world.

5. Why does the Magistrate wash the woman's feet?
The magistrate is symbolically washing away his own ignorance and sins while he washes the woman's feet. If he treats her tenderly and with compassion then he thinks he can separate himself from the people of the same government that did horrible things to her and her people. He is trying to convince her and himself that he is different from the guards and torturers.

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.