Unit 2 - J M Coetzee's Foe (Th)

This blog is a part of a reflective activity assigned by Megha Trivedi Ma'am from the English Department at MKBU, Bhavnagar.   Here’s a blog on the comparative and critical analysis of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and J. M. Coetzee’s Foe

J. M. Coetzee retells a familiar story in Foe yet challenges that very familiarity. Even people who have never read the novel Robinson Crusoe are relatively well acquainted with its iconic portrait of survival after a shipwreck, as well as with Crusoe’s dependence upon Friday, his black companion.

Coetzee introduces this fascinating and challenging theme by having his version narrated by a brand new addition to the deserted island, Susan Barton. Even more challenging and fascinating is the addition of the title character to a tale which in its very familiarity is transformed into an unfamiliar, postmodern metafiction. Eventually, this narrative forces those who actually have read Robinson Crusoe to want to go back and check it against Coetzee’s version.

It turns out that Daniel Defoe (Foe) bought the tale of Crusoe, Friday, and Barton from a Barton on the verge of desperation. Defoe betrays Barton by editing the tale to make it his own. Friday cannot provide a version because his tongue has been cut out. Barton decides to write the narrative, but has trouble communicating with the mute Friday.

Important for understanding the full context of this version is Coetzee’s standing as a white man in Africa. As such, the themes of a black person being unable to relate the narrative of his own experience, and the battle between commerce and art in the rush to get a story told, take on a new level of significance, thus making Foe far more than just another postmodern reinvention of a story told from a slightly different perspective.

Exploring Colonial Narratives: A Comparative Analysis of Robinson Crusoe and Foe

In literature, narratives often reflect the complexities of their time. Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe (1719) and J. M. Coetzee’s Foe (1986) serve as two pivotal texts that engage with themes of colonialism, identity, and power dynamics. While Robinson Crusoe is a classic tale of survival and individualism, Foe critiques and reimagines the colonial narrative from a postcolonial perspective. This blog will explore the key points that highlight the connections and differences between these two works.

1. Narrative Perspective

- Robinson Crusoe: The story is told from Crusoe’s perspective. He is the sole survivor on an uninhabited island, where he becomes the master of his environment. His narrative is one of self-reliance and dominance over nature and other characters, particularly Friday, the island’s indigenous inhabitant.

- Foe: Coetzee shifts the perspective by bringing in the voices of women and marginalized characters. The narrative focuses on Susan Barton, who challenges Crusoe’s account and seeks to give a voice to Friday. This change highlights the importance of multiple narratives and perspectives, especially in colonial contexts.


Foe Themes

Female Experience

Unlike Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe that centers on male experience in the context of male adventure, Coetzee’s Foe comes from the perspective of a female. By revisiting Robison Crusoe from this perspective, Coetzee calls attention to the absence of female experience in the iconic castaway tale. In his version, Susan is not only the protagonist and central subject of events, her experience is also objectified and analyzed by the character Foe. Foe wants to know her experience in Bahia and on the high seas so as to write a sensational story about it. Susan resists this objectification, feeling that the scandalous aspects of her experience are not relevant to the tale she wants told.
Slavery

Though experiences of the slave trade such as the plantation or the middle passage are not directly represented or dramatized in Foe, the theme of slavery is one of the most important in Coetzee’s reimagining of Robinson Crusoe. In Defoe’s original, the trauma of slavery is no source of tension; Friday is a cannibal who becomes a good Christian. In Foe, however, Friday - tongueless, castrated, scarred - is the clear victim of a broader historical trauma. The problem is that he is unable to tell his own story. The narrative suppression of the violence of slavery however is arguably one of the central experiences of slavery. While heavily metafictional, Coetzee’s novel thus becomes a historical novel, indirectly illustrating one of the most important aspects of slavery: the silencing of its victims.
Storytelling

The novel Foe, which revisits the canonical story Robinson Crusoe, is more than just a retelling of a familiar tale. Coetzee reimagines the novel to interrogate the process of narrative construction itself and to unveil the tyranny of authorship and reveal the manipulative powers of the storyteller. The struggle that ensues between Foe and Susan Barton over which story needs telling exposes the ethical responsibilities of writers, particularly in relation to the question of historical violence.


Primitivism

The story of Robinson Crusoe may be read as a romanticization of primitive experience and an escape from civilization. Coetzee’s Foe however turns that on its head. When Susan Barton arrives on Cruso’s island, a place with plenty of fish and no hostile animals, she is stricken by the tedium of the primitive good life as well as relentless wind, repetitive meals, and the overwhelming sense of meaninglessness. There’s nothing to write on and nothing to read. Cruso has renounced all attention to personal history and committed himself to the Sisyphean task of leveling the ground into useless terraces. Primitivism, as rendered by Coetzee, is a an experience of existential crisis, depressive boredom, and delusional madness.
Language

The powers and functions of language are continually examined in Foe as Friday’s inability to speak brings up questions about the usefulness of language. At one point Susan claims, “what I fear most is that after years of speechlessness the very notion of speech may be lost on him. When I take the spoon from his hand (but is it truly a spoon to him, or a mere thing? – I do not know), and say Spoon, how can I be sure he does not think I am chattering to myself as a magpie or an ape does, for the pleasure of hearing the noise I make, and feeling the play of my tongue, as he himself used to find pleasure in playing his flute?” (57)

 In the way that Susan questions the role of language in Friday’s experience, Coetzee's novel similarly questions the usefulness and recklessness of language in human society more broadly. What good is language if it doesn’t tell the truth of history—its violence and horror—but only spins yarns about paradise islands where cannibals learn to become good Christians? This might be one of the most important questions in Coetzee’s novel.
Fantasies of Colonialism

Daniel Defoe’s novel is arguably a fantasy of male independence and primitive survival that springs directly from experiences of colonialism. The high seas adventuring and remote island survival are romanticized scenarios related to colonial exploits. Coetzee’s novel brings realist questions into Defoe’s romanticized scenarios with his self-reflexive, metafictional interrogations of subaltern experience.
Humanitarianism

Has Susan Barton done a good humanitarian deed by taking Friday away from the island, bringing him to England where he is terrified and where they become vagrants on London's streets? When the ship that takes them away first arrives on the island, Friday runs and hides. Susan however insists they can’t leave without him, stating, “inasmuch as Friday is a slave and a child, it is our duty to care for him in all things, and not abandon him to a solitude worse than death” (39). Later, as she roams England with him entirely dependent on her, she questions her decision and frequently thinks he’d be better off on the island. Her initial impulse to bring him however is definitively a humanitarian one, insofar as she calls it a “duty,” a requirement of one human to another. Without considering the consequences, this humanitarian impulse is shown to be problematic. The life she wants Friday to have turns out not only to be totally unattainable, but also arguably not as good. 3. Representation of Characters

- Crusoe: In Robinson Crusoe, the protagonist is portrayed as a heroic figure. His resourcefulness and determination are celebrated. However, his relationship with Friday is problematic, as Friday is reduced to a mere servant and reflects the dehumanizing aspects of colonialism.

- Friday and Susan: In Foe, both Friday and Susan are given depth and complexity. Friday is not just a silent figure; he embodies resistance and agency. Susan’s struggle to write and be heard parallels the struggle of many marginalized voices in history. Their representations challenge the traditional colonial narrative found in Defoe’s work.

4. Language and Power

- Robinson Crusoe: The language used in Crusoe's narrative reinforces his power. He is the narrator who controls the story and defines his reality. His relationship with Friday is characterized by dominance, as he teaches Friday English and expects loyalty without truly understanding him.

- Foe: Coetzee’s text interrogates this dynamic by exploring how language can be a tool of oppression. Susan’s insistence on telling her story and that of Friday represents a reclaiming of narrative power. The novel highlights the importance of language in shaping identity and history.

5. Conclusion: Reimagining Narratives

Both Robinson Crusoe and Foe offer valuable insights into the themes of colonialism, power, and identity. Defoe’s novel reflects the colonial mindset of its time, while Coetzee’s work serves as a powerful critique that challenges traditional narratives and gives voice to the marginalized. By comparing these two texts, we can better understand how literature can reflect and reshape our understanding of history and identity.