The Search For Truth

In both the documentary Grizzly Man and the novel Foe, I noticed one common theme above all others: the quest for truth. In the documentary, filmmaker Herzog attempts to chronicle the life of Timothy Treadwell by using sequences of the countless hours of video footage that Treadwell shot over the course of his last five summers in the Alaskan grizzly-bear infested wilderness. He conducted interviews with Treadwell's friends and family, in hopes of discovering the truth behind this unique man and his lifestyle. While Herzog's bias and manipulation is a different story, he still searches for a truth and eventually comes to a conclusion.
In Foe, we see the quest for truth arise with Susan trying to discover what is real in her life, with the search for her kidnapped daughter. When one day a girl comes up to Susan claiming to be her real daughter, she does not recognize the girl. Susan denies knowing the girl, because all she really knows is the daughter in the role of being lost. She then begins to question whether she is really real, and what her purpose is. Several examples can be brought up regarding the search for truth, but there is no doubt that it exists in both the documentary and the novel.

Liiiiiiies.

Documentaries are one of those things we never question. After all, they are supposed to be telling us the truth, right? Nope. Once again, the class discusses something that isn’t true, shocker. The first time I watched this documentary, I was a young junior in high school. I thought Timothy Treadwell was awesome, kind of weird, but awesome. Now, I’m not so sure how I feel about Treadwell. Herzog, the director of the documentary, portrays Timothy as a crazy fool. He portrays his family and friends as weird and crazy people who supported a ridiculous passion. The reality is Timothy maybe was not the most logical person (he was, after all, protecting a national park), but he did love those animals, and Herzog gives him no credit for that.

Also, all the footage shown on the documentary was cropped and chosen by Herzog, the viewer has no idea what order this was supposed to be in, or how Treadwell wanted us to see it. It is an unfair portrayal of Treadwell. Herzog never includes quotes from the diaries Timothy kept through all his trips, something that I would think is important for a documentary.

So, by the end of this semester I will second-guess documentaries, books, science articles, and probably everything anyone tells me. I guess it’s all lies.

I Don't

I Don't want to be studying! The weather is beautiful, the temperature is excellent, and spring break is almost here. I wish I had had all my midterms last week. This week is brutal, and I hate it.

I Don’t want to be writing essays. Between all of the things that I have to get done this weekend, my essays are the most tedious.

I Don’t want to be dealing with my friends BS relationship problems. They aren’t my qualms and I can’t relate to them. I have other things to do. Sorry! It is not that I don’t care, I just have my own relationship problems to deal with; although by “relationship”, I actually mean academic. They are interchangeable, right? I mean, I’ve got to keep up a decent relationship with my professors.

I Don’t want to be writing this blog post. There, I said it. Its already late, but to some extent I feel obligated to do it. If I thought I would be motivated to do it tomorrow afternoon when I’m “in the home stretch” so to speak, I would do it then.  But lets face the cold hard truth: I know that if I put it off, my 6^th post will NEVER be done. But then again, what does it matter whether I post on the blog now, or in 6 hours? I like posting, don’t get me wrong; especially this post. It is liberating! I am sitting here in a chair in KJ writing my true feelings, rather than hiding behind a semblance and façade, trying desperately to put into words my deep, thoughtful analysis of something.

I Don’t want to edit this post; so, I wont. Here it is, in its raw, unrefined beauty.

Intentional Lies

I was looking at the New York Times this weekend when I came across an article that talked about the history of the progress bar, that loading bar which features on a lot of games and when you are trying to move a lot of large files around your computer. The article featured a couple studies where people preferred to watch a loading bar that moved independently of any work that was actually done over no loading bar. That is to say they preferred to intentionally lie to themselves than to know what the actual loading bar showed. The author of the article postulated that maybe people would like to see an idealized version of a situation rather than to seeing the reality, which is what Barton was doing her whole time on the island. I believe that she was alone on the island, but was not in any hardship at all. But when she was rescued, she couldn't just state that she was marooned on an island and enjoyed life for a few years, so she built this story around herself, which she is trying to accept and sell as the truth.

More Stories Within Stories

      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.

We know nothing

From the beginning, Foe is an interesting concept as a novel because it focuses on the telling--or rather, retelling--of the fictional story of Robinson Cruso. Early in the book, it is immediately clear that the concept of a story within a story is central to the novel. Everything that we read is in the voice of another person. the first layer is the voice of Susan Barton, who is telling the story of of her time with Robinson Cruso on a desert island. At the end of Part 1, we understand that everything Susan is saying is in fact being told to us in the voice of the elusive Mr. Foe, who suspiciously never has a voice in the novel. Finally, the final layer is Coetzee telling us this story of a story within a story. The general structure of the novel ultimately embodies the very nature of storytelling and the relay of stories from person to person.

However, this structure poses an issue that the novel itself comments on. Susan contradicts herself at the end of Part 1 in saying "it was I who shared Cruso's bed and closed Cruso's eyes, as it is I who have disposal of all that Cruso leaves behind, which is the story of his island" (45), as if she were the only reliable source for the story. However, Cruso, the very man who knows the entire story and truth of the island, is dead. Therefore, the truth of Susan's retelling is non-existent, as is the truth in Foe's own retelling of Susan's story.

The nonexistence of truth within the story is expanded by perhaps a small yet important detail. Islands are a clear motif in this novel. In addition to Cruso's island, Susan also notes that Britain is an island and even suggests that Bahia could be an "island in the ocean of the Brazilian forest and my room a lonely island in Bahia" (51). The parallel inherent in the presence of multiple islands is made all the more devious by the power of the imagination which Susan herself describes as "the knack of seeing waves when there are fields before your eyes, and of feeling the tropic sun when it is cold" (52). She prescribes "the knack" of imagination to only Foe, yet as a storyteller, she too is equally subject to the whims of the imagination. Therefore, her story about Cruso could very well be the result of a day dream she carried out from her room in Bahia or even in Britain, a room her imagination transformed into an island, and a forest into an ocean.

Thus, no fact exists in the novel so far and no concrete truth arises. After all, the story is based on a fictional story from the beginning, so there was never any factual information from the start. So we must question why this is. Why do we literally know nothing?

Treadwell vs. Susan

While at first I was intrigued and thoroughly entertained by the bizarreness of Grizzlyman, after watching the first half of the documentary I found the whole story to be very sad.  Timothy Treadwell was indeed a very eccentric character, but Herzog played on his peculiar disposition for the intriguing factor of his film.  It is hard to say whether or not we, as the viewers, were given a fair depiction of who Treadwell truly was.  Herzog had over 100 hours of video from Treadwell and we are subjected to the few point of interest Herzog decided to include.  From the minimal view of Treadwell Herzog allows us to see, it is clear that Treadwell has many issues, whether they are psychological or what have it is unknown, but perhaps his time with the bears is not so much for their safety, but for it.  Treadwell clearly finds peace and serenity in Alaska amongst the bears, and it seems that while he argues his presence is aiding in their safety, perhaps it is truly a coping mechanism for Treadwell to deal with whatever ghosts and skeletons that are deeply troubling him.

While Treadwell chooses to place himself amidst the wild and nature, Susan Barton of Foe was thrown into the unfortunate circumstances of a castaway after a series of ill-fated events.  Foe opens up in a peculiar manner.  The reader is thrown into the middle of a story, disoriented and confused which parallels how Susan must be feeling as she washes up on the shore of the island.  There is a running stream of thought and dialogue that I found hard to follow.  Coetzee offers up important details to the story line only ever so often and neatly folded into the thoughts of Susan and her dialogue with Cruso.  The opening of Foe was abrupt and unsettling, yet foreshadows the theme of what is to come.

Coetzee leaves a lot of breadcrumbs throughout part 1 to undermine Barton's (Mrs. Cruso's) lack of credibility as a truthful narrator.  Barton asks Cruso why he doesn't keep a journal of his time on the island.  She states, "with every day that passes, our memories grow less certain" (17).   The narrative in part 1 is not a journal, but rather are letters written in retrospect to Mr. Foe.  If memories grow less certain as time passes, then how can we be certain that Barton's memories are truthful?  She then lists off the memories that she believes were important to write down: "the prayers of your companions, your terror...your gratitude...your fear...the discomforts" (17).  These are not feelings that Cruso told Barton, they are projections of what Barton believes Cruso felt, revealing her bias and predisposition to believe that Cruso responds to stimulus (i.e, savage beasts, sleeping in a tree, etc...) in the same way that she would.  When Cruso dies, Barton changes her name to Mrs. Cruso in order to make her path easier.  She acknowledges that she did this, yet thinks very little of it: "what kind of woman was I, in truth? - but took his advice and so was known as Mrs Cruso to all on board" (42).  She did this earlier too when she told herself the foma, "I am safe, I am on an island, all will be well" (14).  Who is to say whether or not she would bend the truth in order to make the path easier in other circumstances?

Where's the Trick?

 The beginning of Foe, which instantly captured me with the line "At last I could row no further" has a different effect after finishing part two. As we learn in the second section of the book, Susan Barton has been manipulated to tell a certain type of story by Foe. In this second section he almost becomes more prominent to the story than her time as a castaway. The book is titled after him meaning he must have a great influence on the narrative. She almost obsessively writes letters to him by the end of the section, and the entire chapter is formed around dialogue. This causes me to question whether or not she is a reliable narrator and because of the context of our class, how are we being manipulated? There doesn't appear to be a clear intention by the author to trick us or teach us something. Unlike "Grizzly Man," Cat's Cradle, and The Things They Carried there is no element of misguidance or trickery. I'm wondering where the construction of characters will come into play and when we'll be caused to question the reality of things. Her original purpose for the expedition was to find her daughter, but now that all appears unimportant. She is distracted by her new life and the loss of Cruso enough to forget her original motivations and realities.

Castle on a Cloud

Foe, an interesting name to give a book. When I think of the word foe, I think of an enemy, someone who I see as an opponent. Therefore, opening this book I am expecting to read about some type of war between a group or select individuals. However, that was not the case. Page 40, "the seamen were friends, not foes." This is the first time the word is actually used in the novel. Cruso feels like he is being challenged when Sarah enters the island because it was his sanctuary, HIS island and now someone is threatening that. Then when the Englishmen came to the island and found him sick and on the brink of death, Cruso was sad that these men had taken him away from the island. For Cruso, maybe his foe is all the factors that take him away from his castle, his kingdom. 

The end of the first part brings forth a new character… Sarah mentions Mr. Foe and if he views her as "Mrs. Cruso or a bold adventuress." (Page 45) This unknown man bring curiosity to the story, but is soon revealed in part II of the story. Part II is structured differently than the first. Sarah is now writing letters to this Mr. Foe character, and is I believe thanking him for reminding her of what she experienced on the island. He is also writing their story, Cruso and Friday. 

Foe compared to CC and TTTC, is written in a completely different way. Coetzee is drawing the reader to not be a part of the book, but to still be in the presence of the events. Sarah is trying to draw the audience with her letters, and it is okay if the story is no clearly understood. 

King of the Island

A quote from Foe that kind of stuck with me is when Cruso says "Laws are made for one purpose only... to hold us in check when our desires grow immoderate. As long as our desires are moderate we have no need of laws" (36). Is this why Cruso refuses to look for tools or anything that could better the life on the island, because he wants to keep his desires in check? Perhaps he is nervous that if he continuously thinks about getting off the island, his want for that will exceed anything else, prompting him to do irrational things. Therefore, this is making him accept and appreciate his life he has on the island, especially with the faith that someone will eventually come and plant corn. Also, I think Cruso feels very much in control on the island. Even Susan says "He truly is a kingly figure; he is the true king of his island" (38). His only other companion before Susan arrived was Friday, who doesn't seem to protest his control. Cruso's statement prompts Susan to ask herself the question of why she is still on the island and Cruso hasn't killed her, and why Friday hasn't killed Cruso and freed himself of his master. I think the simple answer is manipulation, particularly by Cruso, in addition to Susan and Friday's dependence on him, from which manipulation stems.

Why so much dialogue?

The first part of Foe is very different from the other books we have read. The majority of the lines in this book are in quotes, which was not the case in Cat’s Cradle or The Things They Carried. Though otherwise the books might read similarly, the fact that Foe is only quotes so far changes how I read and understand the novel. Instead of being told a story from a narrator’s point of view, we are hearing the stories through character’s dialogue.  The previous two books read as if the narrators were speaking directly to the readers. For example, in the chapter Good Form of The Things They Carried, the narrator Tim says “I want you to feel what I felt.” Also the Jonah says, “Listen: When I was a younger man...” in Cat’s Cradle. As the reader, I felt as if those lines were directed and intended for me. However in Foe, the lines I have read so far are not spoken to the reader. We are reading half of a dialogue. It is very different reading stories told by Sarah Barton to another character than stories told by a narrator to the reader. I think this changes how we read and analyze the stories and meaning behind them. This demonstrates that in order to understand a story, it is not only important to analyze the storyteller, but also to recognize the intended audience. But why did J.M. Coetzee choose to do this? What’s the purpose and how does it affect the reader’s experience of Foe? 

Simplicity

My initial reaction to Foe was not as optimistic as I hoped it would be. The title did not mean much to me, or even really make sense with the cover, and I could not understand how it related to Coetzee's work. Needless to say I was quick to judge the book by it's lack of a cover.

After continuing to read, I began to appreciate the simplicity of Coetzee's text. Simplistic may not be the correct work to describe the book as a whole but the mindset in which I was able to read Foe seemed relaxed and carefree. A similar theme reveals itself in Cat's Cradle, that of easygoing, petty reading one may read on a beach. Does this have to do with the fact that both novels relate to an island? I'm not sure. However, I have a hard time comparing Cat's Cradle to Foe at this point in the reading because of the way each book reads. Cat's Cradle reads as though we do not know what is true and what is false. We are first lead to believe everything in the book is false but are then repetitively convinced by Vonnegut, or Jonah, that his work is truthful. Foe does not read this way. From the beginning, we are to assume everything in the book is true. We know it is a work of fiction but are not once given a reason to question the author's truthfulness or integrity. I will be interested to see if this changes throughout the course of the text.

Just Another Construct

            “Grizzly Man” is nothing more than a construct of Herzog. From over 100 hours of footage, Herzog carefully pick and chose which of those to show his audience. He set up interviews, which clearly appeared to be scripted, edited the footage however he desired, and made a film. It was a very selective process of what Herzog chose to show us. He created a contextual frame through which we saw Timothy Treadwell. We only saw what Herzog wished for us to see. He portrayed Treadwell as a troubled man, and the only view we had of him was that which Herzog intended to show to his audience. Knowing that this is a documentary, we were set up with a particular expectation. This film is a seeming actuality, but beneath the facts lie construction and fabrication. Herzog is a director. In order to be successful, he has to create films that will attract an audience. Rather than simply telling a story about a man who sought to save the grizzly bears, Herzog digs deep into Treadwell’s nature and portrays how troubled he truly is. We as an audience see Treadwell through the lens of the camera, a mediating view. In my opinion, this documentary is simply a construct of Herzog, just as the other works we have studied thus far in this course have been constructs of their respective authors. We will never know for sure the true intentions that lie behind these works, but they appear to be nothing more than an author or a director manipulating their audience to get a certain point across to them. 

I See What You Show Me

J.M. Coetzee’s “Foe” parallels Herzog’s manipulation of Timothy Treadwell’s documentary to portray Timothy’s life based on his perspective to portray the life and story of Susan Barton.  In “Grizzly Man,” Herzog stays true to Timothy by showcasing Timothy’s true love for grizzly bears but he makes the decision of showing how Timothy’s need to spend 13 summers in Alaska was Timothy’s own needs and not the needs to save the grizzly bears. It is clearly mentioned in the documentary that the Grizzly bears Timothy was trying to save were conserved by the national park; his need to save them were unnecessary. Through Treadwell’s documentary, Herzog chooses to show the parts of the documentary that shows his perspective.  Treadwell was “different” and did not fit in the society and was able to live better with the grizzly bears.

            In “Foe,” Daniel Foe the author in the book is able to pick and choose what letters he wants to showcase the life of Susan Barton. Since Susan Barton is not a real character, there are no other details about her life other than the letters in “Foe.” Foe has the full power to manipulate the story the way he desires. There are a lot of pieces that are missing within the stories. Susan Barton is a castaway, who was in search of her kidnapped daughter but when she lands in the island, there is no remorse in her face of her lost daughter. It is strange that there are no seeds in the island and no other details of habitation other than Cruso and Friday. Susan Borton is trying to escape her reality because when her daughter finds her she does not want to believe or accept her daughter. She is not actually running away to find her daughter but rather to escape her reality, which is similar to what Timothy is doing.