J.M. Coetzee's nobel lecture entitled "He and His Man" is a narrative in which the personas of Robinson Crusoe and Daniel DeFoe are used. Four years prior The Lives of Animals was published using something that can be seen as similar, with the persona being Elizabeth Costello. In Gareth Cornwell's article "He and His Man": Allegory and Catachresis in J.M. Coetzee's Nobel Lecture" he uses the term "ventriloquizing" a fitting word to describe the hybridity of Coetzee's execution. In the article Cornwell goes on to state, "… Coetzee has told stories rather than given lectures because they enable him to say things that cannot be said in any other way, things, moreover, that remain unsayable – do not exist, cannot exist – outside of the story in which they are embedded and from which they cannot in the end be separated." (98) This seems to be the continuing evolution of an idea that Coetzee has been playing with in previous novels- the dissolution of an exact separation between character and author- I'm reminded of the quote that Kelley, Alice, and Christine used in their Foe presentation which, "…wonders if in Foe Coetzee has not effectively silenced himself" It seems from Foe to The Lives of Animals and into "He and HIs Man" Coetzee has hit a steady stride and found a firm signature to impart this "ventriloquizing" You see the idea appear in Coetzee's preceding non-fiction Doubling the Point with the dismantling he directs at genres and how they intersect and are equally culpable to one another.
One could suggest that this method of "ventriloquizing" is a way for Coetzee to escape that culpability, that by exercising through fictional characters/constructs he eludes being held responsible for what he says. I would argue that his intention is exactly the opposite, this formula actually draws our attention more intensely toward the fallacy that fiction and non-fiction are separate fields based on their relationship to truth. And on that premise enacts a segregation which judges them as separate with different laws and responsibilities. In the case of biography/autobiography we excuse the writer in the sense that the story already exist and the writer is simply there to formulate it into a coherent pattern. Thus the writer is exempt, partially, in the eyes of the authority that qualifies itself by recognizing established "truths" and using it to police the danger of fiction's murky adherence to those "truths" i.e. the limitless potential of not having to deal in "truths" But as post-modernism has revealed truth is not the ground to which any form of writing can claim nor stand upon. Coetzee furthers this point by using narrative in a lecture platform.
Cornwell also points out that Coetzee's nobel lecture, "…revisits a concern that has featured in Coetzee’s writing from the beginning, but that he has returned to with renewed interest (or distress) in recent years – the way in which language inevitably gets in the way of itself – that is, the opacity and waywardness of words in their refusal transparently to represent, their refusal simply and unequivocally to perform or facilitate communication" (98) I would agree. I think about the impotence of language In the Heart of the Country. Coetzee's oeuvre, up to this point, seems dedicated to this principle. It's in this dedication that Coetzee has furthered it into the public realm, where one's voice is expected to speak of oneself, either autobiographically or in terms of engagement toward another persons work, by speaking through another, namely Elizabeth Costello as well as Robinson Crusoe. Why? Perhaps it is because the lines that divide autobiography/biography and fiction/history are not static but instead blurred and overlapping which makes the relationship between author and character more significant. Coetzee says that, "…all writing is autobiography" in this sense the traditional notion of character/author becomes ostensible.
So is Costello than in fact Coetzee? I ask this with a specific passage in mind. Costello is addressing the audience during her first lecture when she states, "If I can think my way into the existence of a being who has never existed, then I can think my way into the existence of a bat or a chimpanzee or oyster, any being with whom I share the substrate of life." The "being" that never existed is a literary character. So the idea of "being", which is an important qualification in this work, can vacillate between the material and immaterial. Is that what is at work in both of these texts ("He and His Man" and The Lives of Animals) And if so, can it inhabit both at once? The practice of reading a narrative from a lectern would suggest it can. But as I have gathered when it comes to Coetzee, I hesitate to use the word answer, the concept is much more resistant to closure.
I would have to agree with you, Dan, that The Lives of Animals is not at all a means for Coetzee to avoid responsibility. I have to admit that this was my first thought, especially since , as a Vegetarian, I wanted Coetzee, for once, to not be so cryptic and say plainly that he is for the rights of animals. But it becomes obvious that the meta-fictive nature of the text is, like so many of Coetzee's novels, a direct critique of himself—the writer. One doesn't have to dig that deeply to see the connections between Coetzee and Costello. I think Coetzee uses Costello as a pseudonym for himself, much like how Vladimir Nabokov used Vivian Darkbloom (is there any significance in the fact that they both chose women's names?). I once again have to mention Nabokov's Pale Fire. The irrationality of the editor (Nabokov), who writes more than the author of the poem (also Nabokov), presents Nabokov's commentary on the role of the commentator/editor. They steal the show, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way, I think Coetzee is commenting on writers through Costello. To me the difference between Nabokov and Coetzee is that Coetzee obviously feels that, as a writer, he has a certain responsibility to speak truth and effect change. But as you point out, language is not necessarily the best means to do so. I think Coetzee would say that fiction/creative writing has a larger capacity to speak truth and effect change than non-fiction. As we stepped away from Modernism and Cartesian certainty/rationality, we stepped into a Post-Modern world that incorporated rationality and Renaissance Humanism. Perhaps the scientists and even the philosophers failed, and it's up to the creative writer to pick up the torch. This is perhaps why Coetzee doesn't drop the creative ball, even when giving a lecture on the rights of animals. But I also think he sees a hypocrisy in the role of a writer trying to effect change, as he is complicit in the same injustices he hopes to rectify, because of the very nature of his language (among other reasons). I haven't read the speech you mentioned, but it sounds like something Coetzee would do. I think that despite the inherent problems with using creative writing as a means to speak truth, Coetzee does still believe in its power.
-Holly
Dan -
ReplyDeleteThe argument you present regarding Coetzee’s method of “ventriloquizing” as a way of “escaping culpability” is an interesting one. I agree that it is not a way, as many might suggest, for Coetzee to escape responsibility for his own ideas and accusations. Given what we know of this “illusive” man, escaping any type of confrontation does not seem in character; furthermore, his texts are purposely centered on the controversies of political power, oppression and on the assumptions of Western intellectuals and academia who are blind to their own positions and the effects upon their own as well as the oppressed. Controversy is at the center of his unsolved arguments that purposely serve to facilitate discussion and hopefully self-evaluation. You mention that Coetzee’s purpose is to draw attention to the “fallacy that fiction and non-fiction are separate fields based on their individual relationship to truth.” Through his unique and intrinsic structural systems, proof of this fallacy is apparent as we read reality into his narratives and decipher the reality that he presents within his “non-fictional” narratives.
In his The Lives of Animals, this structural system not only presents this fallacy, but through the story of Elizabeth Costello’s lectures and personal turmoil as being told by a third person, her son, and through the discussions that intertwine that provide a multiple of viewpoints, Coetzee successfully presents his argument with multiple points of view. The reader may agree with certain comments from one character and question the rest of the same character’s ideas. The reader finds him/herself within this dialog and thereby Coetzee successfully facilitates his chosen topics.
If this text had been written another way, say with Coetzee himself as the lecturer, the discussion would stand the chance of turning into a one sided argument against or in favor of his speech. The discussion and contemplation that he desires would not have the same effects; it would not contain the same depth and would reach as many individual mindsets as it does in his chosen form.
~Kelley
You bring to attention many interesting ideas and I love the way you tied your ideas ro other Coetzee texts (such as "Foe"). I honestly hadn't thought much about "Foe" while reading "The Lives of Animals" (which is funny because it was my groups' text) but I see how this idea of silence and authorship is being played with again.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, what interested me the most was the concept of "ventriloquizing". I LOVE this idea because I think this word fits so well with what Coetzee does. It mirrors the way Coetzee is both attached and removed from his texts. He controls the dummy but he is removed a degree by having the dummy "speak" his words. I find this technique more engaging and interesting. It leaves less room for defense and more room for analyisis. I agree that it does allow to talk about the "unsayable". Therefore if there is a sense of removal, it isn't to place blame on his characters and not take responsibility for what he says. Its a method that is necessary to talk about what people feel unable or uncomfortable to talk about. (As said in class) I think the best way to look at his peice as not weak but like an essay. He provides different answers and analyzes the material in different areas. His peice acts as both an essay and is like a secondary source commenting on itself. That's why people had a hard time figuring out what to do with it. Its almost feels "complete" as is.
Alice