Thus far we
have faced some pretty strange and perplexing modes of manipulation. Ambrose
Bierce tricks us into thinking Peyton Farquhar survived, Tim O’Brien never says
definitively whether or not he killed a man, and Werner Herzog put his own spin
on the true and tragic tale of Timothy Treadwell. However, J.M Coetzee tops all
others’ efforts with the ending of Foe,
which is practically a crime against the reader.
I was very
baffled by the ending to Foe. I
reread it twice, thinking that maybe it was just I but it appears from reading
the blog that others share my sentiments. I do not think the ending provides
any closure whatsoever, and don’t exactly see how it pertains to the rest of
the story. It definitely makes me doubt everything I read beforehand, as Susan
Barton appears to have died. Is Coetzee trying to show us the importance of
perspective, and how there are many sides to every story? I for one do not see
the purpose of this ending, and it left me very disappointed.
I do agree with John, I too was left confused after reading the ending of Foe, however after the last class discussion, I believe J.M Coetzee wants his readers to be conflicted about the ending because the different narrators within the novel are arguably trying to end the novel differently. Susan Barton wants her story about the island to be told, while Daniel Foe wants to tell a story that would entertain his reader and Friday's silence is telling a new story different than both Daniel Foe and Susan Barton. However in order to only hear Susan Barton's story Daniel Foe and Friday's stories need to be silenced and vice versa. The end of Foe allows the readers to see how while reading a novel with one side, many other sides need to be silenced for the reader to come to a solid conclusion.
ReplyDelete