EngL1401W - Spring 2007: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

There is a new narrator at the end of the book. Maybe it is the voice of Coetzee? One thing for certain is that the characters the reader got to know during the course of the novel are either dead or still unable to speak (Friday). A young girl or woman is dead on the steps (representing Susan’s daughter maybe?) Foe is dead on his bed with a woman the reader assumes to be Susan. Whoever the new narrator is, he or she is taking over the story and creating a new one from pieces of information or events that occurred or were mentioned throughout the novel. Even the grenadiers that Foe wanted in Susan’s book are mentioned. I also thought it was very interesting that all of the facts (well at least what the reader thought were facts) get all jumbled up. For example, Susan is found on the underwater shipwreck with a chained Friday on the floor when the shipwreck was supposed to be the one Friday and Cruso were on-not Susan. And the reader thinks Susan was dead in Foe’s bed, so maybe Susan never existed? I also found the ending very interesting. Friday seems to be the only person left alive and his inability to speak makes his story the only pure and honest story (even though we can not find it out). Maybe Coetzee ended Foe like this to show that the only way to fight against colonization/domination is through silence?

I really don't know what to say. This ending was bothersom and I 've been trying to piece it together since I finished it last night. I can't decide wether I'm pissed off of intrigued, wether I should say "oh, that was lovely" or curse coetzee for getting me into the text and then giving us the lazy ending. If it is necessary to have such an extensive backround in Lit. and poetry to understand what is happening then I'm sure glad I'm in this class and didn't read this on my own.

This bugged me, I am interested to get into discussion in class to figure this one out. Right now I feel that this book had a lot of great Ideas that were strung together in this wierd incomplete text and ultimately the thread and everythning that felt like it was leading somewhere unravels at the end and nothing is concrete, no statment is assertained. so be it. I thought it was a quick and lazy way to end the book. I am REALLY hoping that some light can be shed on this to make it feel like Coetzee gave me something from this text and didn't just laugh in my face at the end like some snooty know-it-all scholar.
:}

Marcia,
I have really been thinking about this, I think it is hard to say why he wrote this way and not another way. I am greatly impressed with his ability to write clear and eloquent verse. Some lines in this book are absolutely outstanding.
The problem with this whole unit that I have (Said, Spivak, Coetzee) are that none of these authors have made the problems (or solutions) readily accessable to people. How can this movement against racism, orientalism, giving power to voices etc. move forward when you have to be a mega-intellect to follw these "key" thinkers in the fight? Who are they arguing with? How is this useful to me, or anyone else for that matter, if we have to struggle to follow along with thier argumentation? I found many place where Said's and Spivak's argumentation was weak and maybe erroneous.
I only know little about Spivak's writing, but it seems to me that if she had proposed a solution to the "problem", her own writing on the subject would become irrelavant, when I went back and re-read it the other night I decided she makes this confusing, to keep the "argument" and discussion going. The word "subaltern" itself entails a position lacking power, that's a non-issue. The issue of voices, in a philosophical sense, is sticky because even in the case of the woman who committed suicide, she DID make a statement, in the end she did have a voice . The evidence to prove this is in the simple fact that Spivak has used it in her work. So where does this leave her argument?
Back to FOE I think that ending the book in this way shrunk his audience down at the last minute to a finite group. I don't know why he did this. I hope I can get a better idea from you or my classmates.
As for the unit we've been studying, I think that everyone can agree that the core issues are true and important. However, the fact that we all might agree that colonialism was bad or that Friday in Crusoe was written in a rascist way does not obligate us (or maybe just me) to agree with everything Spivak, Said, or Coetzee says. Or in other words, a unanimous agreement between all of us about these issues does not obligate us to quietly accept a bad arguement or weak connection made by an author fighting for the same cause. On the contrary, it obligates us to guard against these errors with more diligence. And it would seem to me ideal to at least make the movement available to everyday people otherwise they will continue to watch '24' on channel 9 instead of reading books like FOE and we will move no further in our quest to make the world more equitable and just.
There are very good lines in Foe as the end approaches, I think that it would have felt much better (to me) if the book ended on page152. That would have been very good. Perhaps he could have put the peom reference somewhere else in the book, not the end?

I AM SO CONFUSED! I don't know if I need to let the contents settle more or if the book will never make sense to me. I honestly can't understand who the last narrator is. Is it the "daughter?"

The fact that Friday seems to be the only one alive intrigues me. Is Coetzee trying to say something by doing this? Maybe he's trying to say something about the power of his silence. I haven't figured out what yet...but I strongly believe it has something to do with that...maybe like what Allison is thinking...about colonization??

It seems, thankfully, that I’m not the only one confused.
My understanding is that the narrator at the end was Coetzee himself, as the author of the book, trying to sift through all the things, people, the “myths” and piecing together a version of truth. This I believe suffices as the answer to “who should dive,” it is every individual for him or herself. Each reader must immerse themselves into the story and take from it what they believe is the truth or reality because truth is what we dictate it to be. This is where I see a major comparison between Foe and the original Robinson Crusoe because in the original book Crusoe’s life begins on the island and ends shortly after leaving but when Susan Barton wishes to do this, Foe denies it’s credibility as a story on it’s own. When Barton says this about god, “…we are that which he writes. We, or some of us: it is possible that some of us are not written, but merely are…”(143) That, I think, embodies Coetzee’s argument about the original story and it’s validity. Crusoe was what DeFoe imagined it to be, as Barton was imagining her own, with, self-praise and embellishments.
The biggest question in Foe seems to be, whose story is real? Who can we trust? I think the ending of the story, although sort of open ended, reveals the answer. It is Friday. Although he cannot speak, whatever he does is real. It cannot be changed by his thought, because it is not his story, it cannot be wavered by opinion, he has no voice. He alone is the truthful character. Although a little broad I think this draws back to Coetzee’s South African influence, it goes back to slavery. Black men and women weren’t given any choice or say, just as Friday wasn’t given any in Foe.

We are, I am, you are

by cowardice or courage

the one who find our way

back to this scene

carrying a knife, a camera

a book of myths

in which

our names do not appear.

Coetzee is, and all of us are the people diving down into this story, all about Crusoe, Barton and Foe, a story full of myths, choosing to believe whatever we want to believe.

Wow. I hate books that don't make it clear what they intended to get across. I think what it all goes to is who can tell a story and truly get the whole thing across? Susan could not tell Croso's story, she didn't know what he was thinking, she could only presume from the few pieces of conversation they had what goes on in that head of his. Anything she says will have her own spin on it and Cruso will be deprived and degraded in the act. But the point isn't only in people speaking for other people, but also in speaking for yourself. It was mentioned several times in the book that Friday must have his own story to tell, but can't supposedly for being dumb. Maybe this could represent people who can't speak for themselves because they don't have the needed eloquence or education or even the capability to keep people listening to them long enought to get the full story across (this is kind of vague but I'm trying my bes to get my point across). One thing I thought for this last few pages, is who is speaking? Not Susan, Crusoe, or Friday because they are dead. But then again, does it matter? This person is describing what they see, but I realized that they will never know the story of how Susan and the captain came to end up together on the ocean. Only Susan and the captain can tell that. But as I described above, even Susan and the Captain would tell two different stories because we all see things in our own manner. We could read/hear both of their accounts and build a better overall picture for ourselves what happened. But even then, if we were able to view the events for ourselves, we would all see different things because we notice different details and would view different things as significant. Did that make sense?

"This is a place where bodies are their own signs. Now, like everyone, i am extremely confused by the ending of this book. Im going to try to make some sense of what I read though anyway......
Im not exactly sure what this quote MEANS but I think that this quote shows what Coetzee was trying to do with this book . I think that he used the different bodies to symbolize their purpose in the story. For example, Friday's silence and demeanor could represent how coetzee felt an actual native would act, but it could also symbolize his response to being portrayed as the "little puppy" in the original Robinson Crusoe. In fact, I feel like there are so many allegories being represented by ALL of the characters. I am trying to piece together what each of them stood for, but I always feel like I can't get what Coetzee was trying to portray because he is being so abstract in expressing his opinions about the original Crusoe, the status quo, and all that good stuff. And then there is the possiblity that all the ideas that I am coming up with for what these character's bodies are signs for are completely out there in left field.....

Who is speaking here? What is happening? Who is acting? What new “character” has come on the scene?

(^^^MY QUESTIONS EXACLTY!!!^^^)

What's going on? This ending was completely random... I’m still very confused.
Was it a dream maybe?
How were they on the island again? (that’s assuming they were on “the island”)
Who was telling the story?
I didn't like it at all. Why would he end it this way? I have no idea whatsoever. All I can say is that this wasn't one of my favorite reads. I think I was confused for the majority of the text. The ending was not illuminating in any way. I thought that maybe the end would clear things up for me. I figured that Coetzee would explain “girl” or Friday in more detail—didn’t happen. I thought that he was going to END the book… I don’t feel like it was an ending. The last paragraph is basically a repeat of another one earlier in the same section. Why? Honestly, I’m not sure what to think anymore… this was a strange, strange novel! If anyone has any insight into this book; I’d love to hear about it.

I can honestly say I have never been more confused at the end of a book EVER! What happened? I need some serious insight… I think Coetzee created a really interesting plot with some great writing and metaphors and it kept the reader reading but I almost feel like I was tricked into reading the book and hoping for a real conclusion. I was hoping the get some real answers about the daughter, Amy, Friday, the dead baby she found and everything that was so elusive in the book. ANY explanation would have been better than the ending that it has now. But then again maybe I just don’t get the idea of the last few pages. I think the narrator at the end might be Coetzee himself…? I’m really not sure. It seems like he unwinds or undoes everything that book has led up to. This book is intense, there should be like a precursor to it warning that it is not merely a book about a woman who was shipwrecked and wants to sell her story. It is about an author who wants to debunk truth in stories and make readers question the very essence of every “story” they are “told”. Atleast that’s what I think it’s about.

The link to "Diving into the Wreck" didn't work, so I can't comment on that.
I found the end of this book to be somewhat of a slap in the face by the author. Not in any insulting way, but just how random it seemed at first. It's as though this new voice is Coetzee himself stumbling upon the story of Barton and Friday. This repeated mention of the dead, dust, and of DeFoe's plaque made me think that maybe this was Coetzee's way of cementing this book as a response to Robinson Crusoe. Coetzee took the old, outdated ideas of Defoe and created a somewhat satirical rewrite. I see the state of the apartment as being a representation of Robinson Crusoe.
I do not understand the end with the water and seaweed. Is it the death of Barton as a "real" character into that of a more obviously fictional one? It was this part that I found to be the most confusing.
It almost seems as though this last chapter could actually be the beginning of a book. It doesn't obviously act as a conclusion to the rest of the novel. Instead, as other posts seem to show, the ending of Foe leaves more question than answers.

It seems that the end is the book that would sell a million copies or make millions at the box office. Foe is trying to say that her story leaves nothing to the imagination and that the story is boring. He doesn't share the same passion that Barton does about the truth behind the content. He realizes the facts that sometimes the story needs to be stretched in order to sell some copies. This ending may be Coetzee's best jab at the real Robinson Crusoe saying that the story that he wrote or how it is portrayed, would never transfer to any length of truth in the real world. Friday doesn't learn english, he doesn't have any concern for the dead, and there is no sea monster called a kraken that plays any role into the story. Simply stated, he is saying that real DaFoe or Foe is stretching the imagination a little too far to believe at all.

The last section of Foe must be the narrator speaking because all the other characters are dead/ghostly. Even though this person tries to pry Friday's mouth open and hears the "sounds of the island", it still does not give me a good grasp as to what type of character Friday is. His silence until the very end leaves a sour taste in my mouth because I want to know what is going in his brain, but I can't and never will. I think this a is a powerful technique used by Coetzee to get people to listen to subalterns like Friday. Their silence makes us curious as to what is going on, and if they do speak, we shall be listening instead of ignoring.

I have absolutely no clue as to what is happening in the end of the book. When i first read it as the continuation of the story, i was too confused to really think about it. So i read it a second time. No good. So i tried it for the 3rd time, then the 4th and finally i lost count of how many times i tried to read the last few pages. At first i thought it was the spirit of Susan who was narrating the last few pages but then the idea of it being the author seems more logical. It might be him trying to search and find out what the truth is all about. I still dont understand how Susan Burton ended up as a dead body with the captain. If that was really Susan, then who was the Susan who was communicationg with DeFoe all this while? Who was the dead woman on the bed? Was it Susan? If it was Susan then how can she be dead in two places at two different times? Maybe one of them was the girl who called herself Susan Burton too. It would all have appeared to be a hallucination if it was not for the fact that Friday really exists. Maybe the author is trying to say that words can be twisted to mean things which are not true and hence silence is something which we should listen and pay attention to. As i said, i have no idea but I am just glad that i am not the only one confused with the ending of the book.

I found it rather strange that Coetzee used this tyoe of writing style. AFter reading it a few times, I initally thought it was a reader of the book that Foe ended up writing about Susan and Friday. The reader traveled to the places to the book and found the body's of the characters. After more thought, that would be nearly impossible because Friday was still alive, and there was no deterioration on the dead bodies. Coetzee would be the only other logical answer for who is "I". He repeatedly uses the phrases that Susan used and tries to open Friday's mouth to see if he can really speak, or was just held from speaking by Susan.

I never really understood the last paragraph. Did he actually hear Friday speak? or did he just hear faint noises that could have led to talking? It was very rare, to me at least, that the book which contained all fictional characters, was ended by the narration of the author, a real person.

The last section of this book confused me at first, but once discussed in class I think that the narrator is Coetzee himself going into the wreck and trying to discover the truth behind the story and his confusion with the character of Friday. He doesn’t understand Friday and he wants to know more about his past and what he is thinking which was made evident when he tried to pry open his mouth only to hear the sounds of the island. What happened before the island? Or is Friday the island, representing all its mysteries which will never be heard? He does not tell us anymore about Friday, except perhaps that there is more to Friday than one would at first think, and I think that is the feeling that Coetzee wanted to leave the reader with, but its very confusing. The last section is dealing more with Friday than anything and it is that reason that he states the bodies are signs, because Friday could not, or did not wish, to speak. Language is our thoughts put into symbols which we then interpret and so Friday’s symbols were physical things not words and that is why Coetzee ended the story without him speaking.

I thought that it was Susan that was speaking during this part. It is like it is a dream or that it is something coming from Foe's imagination. The story turns weird and there are a lot of things that are brought up again like the ship and hearing the ocean in Friday's mouth. The speaker takes a different look at these things and makes the reader go back and review the rest of the story in their mind. Lastly, the new character that I thought was interesting was the girl/thing on the landing that Susan/someone trips over. THis is another turning point in the book that questions the story as a whole and somewhat the reader's sanity as well.

The very end of Foe is very strange and confusing. After reading it a couple times I think it made a little more sense, but still not a whole lot. What I saw was a mysterious narrator come who may very well have been Coetzee himself. He enters Foe’s house twice to see Susan and Foe both dead on the bed. However, Friday is still alive both times. The second time he finds notes written by Susan about her captivity, and soon the narrator is climbing around in a sunken boat, where possibly Susan and the ship captain are. Friday is alive here as well and the narrator seems to portray that he speaks, however he never actually says any words Friday said. Also Friday is underwater. I seem to think the last lines point to Friday not necessarily speaking to the reader, but that he is showing that he is a person with thoughts and that he has a purpose not speaking. Also it could be that because Susan and Foe are dead he may be somewhat speaking, possibly because before he chose to remain silent so that they could “hear” his defiance.