Ghostly Writing: Narrative Structure in J.M. Coetzee’s Foe
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The paper provides an in depth of examination of the narrative structure of J. M. Coetzee's Foe. First of all, Coetzee writes back to Robinson Crusoe, written by a British author, Daniel Defoe in the eighteenth century. In writing back to Robinson Crusoe, Foe appropriates Defoe's rhetorical devices such as an autobiographical element, journal and memoir. The appropriation is shown from the section one to the section three. Most significantly, the appropriation aims at (de)constructing the reliability of the novel in the early eighteenth century. It is, however, notable that the strategy of writing-back in Foe is not that simple. That is to say, Coetzee essentially questions the reliability of Robinson Crusoe within the postcolonial context. The subversion of the reliability begins with the third person female narrator, Susan Barton, instead of the first person narrator, Robinson Crusoe in Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. Under the gaze of Susan Barton, the reader finds that Defoe's rhetorical devices are not applied to the racial other, Friday. By pointing out the problematic representation of Friday, Foe maximizes the subversive effect of the writing-back strategy. In particular, Coetzee's idea on representing the other goes a step further. For him, Susan Barton also cannot speak of the other as well as for the other. The disappearance of the reliable narrator, Susan, in the last section reveals the radical idea of Coetzee on writing and representation. The ghostly voice of the last section questions the reliability and narrative of Susan Barton. The ghostly narrator clearly tells that any narratorial subject cannot be free from the reliability in terms of representing the other. In sum, J. M. Coetzee's Foe takes advantage of the effect of the appropriation and subversion as a postmodern parody of Robinson Crusoe. And at the same time, the narrative structure of Foe offers the reader a chance of reconsidering its textual limitation as well as a counter-discourse to the racial contract embedded in colonial narratives.
Abstract
The paper provides an in depth of examination of the narrative structure of J. M. Coetzee's Foe. First of all, Coetzee writes back to Robinson Crusoe, written by a British author, Daniel Defoe in the eighteenth century. In writing back to Robinson Crusoe, Foe appropriates Defoe's rhetorical devices such as an autobiographical element, journal and memoir. The appropriation is shown from the section one to the section three. Most significantly, the appropriation aims at (de)constructing the reliability of the novel in the early eighteenth century. It is, however, notable that the strategy of writing-back in Foe is not that simple. That is to say, Coetzee essentially questions the reliability of Robinson Crusoe within the postcolonial context. The subversion of the reliability begins with the third person female narrator, Susan Barton, instead of the first person narrator, Robinson Crusoe in Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. Under the gaze of Susan Barton, the reader finds that Defoe's rhetorical devices are not applied to the racial other, Friday. By pointing out the problematic representation of Friday, Foe maximizes the subversive effect of the writing-back strategy. In particular, Coetzee's idea on representing the other goes a step further. For him, Susan Barton also cannot speak of the other as well as for the other. The disappearance of the reliable narrator, Susan, in the last section reveals the radical idea of Coetzee on writing and representation. The ghostly voice of the last section questions the reliability and narrative of Susan Barton. The ghostly narrator clearly tells that any narratorial subject cannot be free from the reliability in terms of representing the other. In sum, J. M. Coetzee's Foe takes advantage of the effect of the appropriation and subversion as a postmodern parody of Robinson Crusoe. And at the same time, the narrative structure of Foe offers the reader a chance of reconsidering its textual limitation as well as a counter-discourse to the racial contract embedded in colonial narratives.
참고문헌 (16)
- Attridge, "Coetzee and the Ethics of Reading" (2004), Chicago UP
- Atwell, "Doubling the Point in Essays and Interviews" (1992), Harvard UP
- Booth,Wayne, "The Rhetoric of Fiction" (1961), Chicago UP
- Carusi, "Foe in The Narrative and Power", Journal of Literary Studies, 5(2), pp.134~144 (1989)
- Cavell, "Excerpts from Memory", Critical Inquiry, (32), pp.773~774 (2006)
- Caire, "Notebook of a Return to the Native Land" (1984), Wesleyan University Press
- Coetzee,J.M, "Foe", ~ (1986)
- Durrant,Sam., "Postcolonial Narrative and the Work of Mourning" (2004), SUNY Press
- Grabe, "Postmodernist Narrative Strategies in Foe", Journal of Literary Studies, 5(2), pp.145~182 (1989)
- MacLeod, "Do We of Necessity Become Puppets in a Story? or Narrating the World in On Speech, Silence, and Discourse in J. M. Coetzee’s Foe", Modern Fiction Studies, 52(1), pp.1~18 (2006)
- Miller, "Fiction and Repetition:Seven English Novels" (1982), Harvard UP
- Mills,Charles W., "The Racial Contract" (1997), Cornell UP
- O’Neill, "The Fictions of Discourse:Reading Narrative Theory" (1994), Toronto UP
- Tiffin, "Post-Colonial Literatures and Counter-Discourse", Kunapipi, 9(3), pp.17~38 (1987)
- Walcott, "Remembrance and Pantomime: Two Plays" (1980), Farrar
- Worthington, "Self as Narrative:Subjectivity and Community in Contemporary Fiction" (1996), Clarendon