After reading Foe, I am left wondering what J. M. Coetzee
wants us to understand about stories.
He seems to imply that stories are unreliable, as he presents his story
to us through an unreliable narrator.
However, he himself acts as an unreliable narrator because he completely
turns the story on its head in chapter four. He also motivates us to root against Susan Barton, the
storyteller, and root in favor of Friday, the silent character. Thus, it seems he is more in favor of
silence and the unknown than stories, which can easily be unreliable. If this is so, then what are we to
think of Coetzee himself? He is
himself a storyteller. Does he
want us to except him as unreliable?
And wouldn’t it hurt his credibility as an author? This novel unearths many questions for
me, which is possibly exactly what Coetzee intended. And maybe because we cannot accept the story for what it is
because we are supposed to question it, maybe Coetzee is encouraging us to look
deeper at the meaning as opposed to the actual story itself.
I think this is a very interesting post. You picked up on a few things that I did not, for example that Coetzee himself may be as unreliable as the narrators he writes in Foe. In terms of looking deeper, I wouldn't even know where to begin. Foe has, wrapped inside it, many many details, plots, stories, messages, and silence. It is hard to imagine unfolding Foe and finding a meaning that connects all of these small details. I agree that there must be a greater meaning to the novel, however I am unfortunately just as confused as you are as to what that exact meaning may be. I think we can take multiple messages from Foe and it is up to us to decide which we take.
ReplyDelete