Once again we are reading stories with narratives within narratives. Within Foe, we see the letters being written. We also come in contact, indirectly, with Foe, a writer. Foe is also a reference to Daniel Defoe, author of Robinson Crusoe. Although published in 1986, Foe is intricately connected with Robinson's Crusoe.
It's interesting to consider how Foe might be read by someone who hasn't read Defoe's work, as opposed to someone who has. One who has read RC likely compares details in the books, the writing, and might better understand Coetzee's motives behind incorporating RC. Having read RC when I was younger, I notice things like the fact that Crusoe is spelled as Cruso, Cruso's mentality seems to be explored more in Foe, and RC seems more aimed at entertainment. As one who has read RC, I feel more prone to taking it as the "true" Robinson Crusoe, although this one does blur some lines.
For one who hasn't read the book and is perhaps only familiar with it, the Foe may be read differently. The connection to Defoe is made less relevant and the reader focuses more on Barton and her role in the letters. Any unease of her meddling with Defoe's story isn't present. The fact that Foe is a series of letters by nature creates a story into which the reader is peering in, perhaps making him or her more objective. As brought up in other posts though, there are problems with how believable these letters are.
When I started reading "Foe", I noticed Cruso's name resembled Robinson Crusoe's name. However, I didn't really think much of it because I haven't read "Robinson Crusoe". I did quickly google "Foe" to try and get some background on it, and the first result was about Daniel Defoe. Once again, I didn't really think much of it, or realize the connection until we discussed it in class. I agree with you that someone who has read Robinson Crusoe would notice nuances in "Foe" that relate to "Robinson Crusoe", thus reading it differently. It would be interesting to see these differences.
ReplyDelete