From the
start of the novel, we as readers attach ourselves to Susan because she is the
only voice. Since she is serving as storyteller, Friday seems to be her
creation. We never have access to Friday’s story. Prior to reading part IV, I
simply saw Friday as a character within whom silence had been installed,
representing his lack of freedom. He serves as something that is both there and
not there at the same time. However, part IV made me question Susan’s validity
at all. As Susan is introduced to be dead, I began to wonder whether she had
been the voice of the story at all. All we are left with is Friday and his
untold story, and the words of Daniel Foe. Were Susan’s travels actual
occurrences? While reading the novel, I assumed the words on the pages in front
of me to be Susan’s account of her journey and the happenings along the way.
But after finishing, I began to question whether these took place at all, or if
they were nothing more than pieces of a bigger story. The truth lies within
Friday, but as readers, we will never be exposed to it. This presents the
question of authorship, as we are left to wonder who the narrator was all
along.
I think you are spot on when you say "the truth lies within Friday" and we will never be able to access that truth. As we discussed in class, when one side of a story is told, other sides are silenced. I wrote my blog post about how Part IV of Foe is similar to An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge because we find out that the story we just became emotionally attached to did not really happened. Susan's story is rendered untrue in Part IV, and that seems to make her an unreliable narrator and we question the authorship. With Susan narrating this invented story, we get one side or one vision, yet the "truth" is silenced. And that truth does seem to be Friday.
ReplyDelete