J.M.Coetzee's 'Disgrace'.
Posted: 27 Oct 2011, 19:19
Rebellious, vulgar, obscene, shocking, intelligent, layered, interesting.
These are the words of the people who are as uninteresting as the author is reputed to be.
If you have read 'Disgrace' - as I presume you have, since you clicked on this post - you will know that the 'disgrace' of David Lurie because of his affair with Melanie Isaacs is quite tragic, and yields some literary merit in that respect. If you know about it's context in post-apartheid South Africa then you will be aware that it's obscenity and rebelliousness is something to be excited about, even admired.
But what questions does it ever raise? Is it really that challenging? It seems that it's only challenging to self-righteous Feminists, who think they have something to say about the affair, the treatment of his daughter, and the role women play in the novel as a whole. Well, alright, but what about the rest of humanity? Can we not invest anything in this novel? I would argue, that the answer to that is no.
Questions like - do we feel sorry for Lurie? How significant is Lurie's association with Byron? Is it fair that he suffers? tend to make me want to leap out of a window, and unfortunately, it's the only conversation which can be got from such a novel.
I would like to be asking - how much of what Lurie does is inevitable? Is the sympathy we afford him with simply put to us by Coetzee's own writing style? How much does Coetzee intervene in the judgement of Lurie? Why does Lurie engage with the wider Byron circle, and become a slave to his own social inadequacy?
But why can't I ask these? Because the novel does not have enough on each to have an interesting discussion about. Just as you think you are on the brink of a new line of enquiry, a new field of knowledge, you are thwarted by Coetzee's bland, matter-of-fact writing style which stifles the novel.
Would love to read a second viewpoint on the novel.
These are the words of the people who are as uninteresting as the author is reputed to be.
If you have read 'Disgrace' - as I presume you have, since you clicked on this post - you will know that the 'disgrace' of David Lurie because of his affair with Melanie Isaacs is quite tragic, and yields some literary merit in that respect. If you know about it's context in post-apartheid South Africa then you will be aware that it's obscenity and rebelliousness is something to be excited about, even admired.
But what questions does it ever raise? Is it really that challenging? It seems that it's only challenging to self-righteous Feminists, who think they have something to say about the affair, the treatment of his daughter, and the role women play in the novel as a whole. Well, alright, but what about the rest of humanity? Can we not invest anything in this novel? I would argue, that the answer to that is no.
Questions like - do we feel sorry for Lurie? How significant is Lurie's association with Byron? Is it fair that he suffers? tend to make me want to leap out of a window, and unfortunately, it's the only conversation which can be got from such a novel.
I would like to be asking - how much of what Lurie does is inevitable? Is the sympathy we afford him with simply put to us by Coetzee's own writing style? How much does Coetzee intervene in the judgement of Lurie? Why does Lurie engage with the wider Byron circle, and become a slave to his own social inadequacy?
But why can't I ask these? Because the novel does not have enough on each to have an interesting discussion about. Just as you think you are on the brink of a new line of enquiry, a new field of knowledge, you are thwarted by Coetzee's bland, matter-of-fact writing style which stifles the novel.
Would love to read a second viewpoint on the novel.