Interpretative Authoritarianism: Reading/Colonizing Coetzee's Foe Michael Marais Tevses Dove rises a number of pertinent points inher ecm of CContesaeratorson he polite! Hersey ofthe censure which (Contec work fseived fram th quater revel tha he rounds for ‘ejection fe geval ofan ideological ature raging from acusatons ‘hat his “willg fs preosupie with prblens of contiowsnesy ths Deraying at east rather than a mates stance tothe comenion ‘hatin Ylingtodelineste the esonom omplexites of presen [oe] is go history allwrogg™ Tort could be sed the acesiion levelled at Coewae's Foe, ata recent seminar onthe novel tat iis Sivored from South Afcan teil and politcal teaite-anoter ‘Stcaalyidologieal complaint! Dovey argue hat this type of ete fe witht eie tat Cowtee “writin some eter way, exemplis ‘wha Eagleton el the “normative ison” defined a oiows “The formative sion constitutes efusal ofthe objec a itis tore ‘tains an independent, re-existem movel of hich the empirical exis “in imperfec apy, an iesental appearance "= When apie t Cox ces dactionbeiween novel wbichaupplemest history and thot wc | Fal i! ths conept proves useful Accerdng to Coctee, readers _tibute ents which supplement story with rete uth than those ‘Thich rival t becouse the former ore teore engaged with the historical10 saci wana substan, the ext ees his er conciousness of the ati in ‘hich se is engaged by means ofa numberof tata states The ‘nowt important of thew ir Costes are of the conventions ofthe Richardronan epistolary novelappsite na text which purports 0 Be st eghteendbratry novel—whch place the vender a letereade? ‘vite hestrcture of te novel. Fer example, Pat presated as Susan Maton writen acount ofher say on he Wand adresse toa reader whois referred te a -you" (9p 7:8: 11 143) abd whose identity ison ‘evel toe Foe atthe end of thi section of the neve! (PAS). BS ‘thholding this information, Coetze gives the reader of the txt the Impression that ies he who inbeng addressed diel 5"yoa,”in his ‘ay eighteaing his her saree ofthe reading proces and eating ime with the eader rine, namely Foe. The delterat nature af thiretention of information aid bate Pare wha the irst sentence of the noel is repeated, Buti time together wi the station "Dear “Theexpowur ofthe sion of orespondence rated bythe epsiolary lechalgue sid inthe fst two prs af he noel sso das the ears tenon vo the act of reading. Its usualy the ase in epsolay nove ‘Sch as those o Richardson that he rede aso sspend dsb “We ave to acep ficient word whos inhabitant ie att were for the enw areconsant siting down at soon a aythinghar happened them towritecetaled decrptionsof he evestsand long anaes of het ‘cations 1o them, inthe form of letter t tele fends” Tn For, however, Cactzestscutto achieve the opposite, tha, promot Aisheetby deteratey rencering the eter riting station implausible Instead ofthe conventional mage of th writer ait ber dak, the realet Instead of the conventional image of the writer at his) her desk, the readerInsesta AuINOMARHOE TT Your word and mine. Why do seth to whom do speak en Ieee So wed ape? (p13) “Thispasageenposs he fact that he illision of correspondence create in {heft paris f the nave! has een replaced in Pat Ib he sion ‘tapeth, achieved by th us of rama pont ofvew —Satan Barton na longer writes to Foebutspeaks"tohim Inforegrounding thi disper, ‘he lion generated by the deamati method of presenaion tbat he ‘reader i present atthe action, witnessing the stene and hearing the ‘halogen turn hatred, since te reader eminent hes in ‘eal reading. aot Intening—tbe veaing expevene i pape, ol ‘couse. Moreover the passage leaves the reader no doubt as tthe “dents fhe ndresee ities hetowhom Soran Barton"spea.” The ‘eading proces thus elfestively underscored Reading i ao accentuated by Friday’ sketch of he walking ees “éexrted by Sutan Barton "But when Teme close Ia he eves ere ‘es opencjescach ot upon a husan fat row pon row ef pes Upon Kee walking eyes 47). Friday design a graphic depiction of the metaphor of the reer a a wave, «Lopes of eghtententary erature most memorably expressed by Henry Fling "What we the ‘Contents prefixed to every Chapter, bit so many inseipuoes ove he ‘Gates ot ano continue the same metaphor Jinlormingthe Reade what Enleraiament ets oeapect when ies nl, hemay travel on tothe By foregrounding rating ia this way, Coma places the reader ina postion to pete the various way in which veading i allegories, Sramataed and tematized nthe nove. Indeed ierpretation ofa tev" anunn 10 bo Ge deretnens eusheiey in te curl, ch usted tn etek2 mown sans Sosan Barton and Fo ty toma ene” of he story fhe island and of Friday. Such stempt by the characters nthe novel ona sese” of Friday ste the reader’ aitempis to "make see” ofthe novel. The ‘oder thos identified wth Susan Baton and Fos, andthe tex ith Friday. Thirientlcstion polls the at of rading snc sugges thatthe elton of maser to ave—stetially& powe elation hate {erzedby domination and cjetifation identical o Ua of tender to tent Tae novel therefore stuates reading Gly win Weoiony in nde Hutcheon terms, fees he tear “to seraiize hs [er ‘concept of arta wel ais [her] fe vals” — a eronseates that the prnile which inform reading extend to fein peer. Teed the proces of eadng th vel aot ane panve, esol innocent {ay removed fom the imperatives ofthe stoi present require, {ace engagenen it the pois of domination “Tis becomes fre evden pon loser consideration ofthe rage surrogates inthe novel oe and Susan Baton. Throughout the vel Susan Barto iso interpret Friday's snc, nhs way eicroring the Stance ofthe eaerie ation othe tet. She voor realizes bat Fay Silene ives ber fnterpreaive stance with power: “Feiday has no Command of words and therefore no defence aguas being esaped dy ‘ydayinconformity withthe ene of othe No mater what beisto ‘nue what he othe world is what I make of in” (3 ali, pr la133) The manipulative strength ariclsted ere by Satan Barton ‘ey similar to tat ofan author. Indeed, "shping™ and “making” ce ‘tral the ition-making proces, sx sugsesed by the etymology of| ‘he word fiction bic derived (vom the Latin finger, meaning "0 Imakcor shape" Soran Barton elation to Friday fot nly analogous make or shape.” | Susan Barton eat ay eo ny a eerarer AviNORTAR 18 ‘ten them?™(p.1$0). That the mors of the deed determin rather than lherate comes clear Part IV, where the eer ol tal hee" ‘enrlikeanectac, ty a70pe chain” on Fray’ eck (p13), Sas Baron attempt iterate Priday hus sugaete of he ways whch slavertaders pial oppress the victims. "The inpications fr the reader of he staring equation of ender and author ite novel become clea when the Tle of the otber Tender Surropste namely Foe, examined. In thetext Foes epicied a both + ‘eadersutrogate ng an author surogue. Asthe reader inthe novels Cloely ented withthe reader ofthe novel, since the epatoary ‘echnigue rete theson that he hasdles mu the corespondeace ‘ready the reader ofthe novel. However, Foe, beingacdonazation of| Defi nis the putative author of Robinson Crs ad, nthe conte bf hiambivlent stats a reader and authorin Cotaee¥ novel, Roincon Crue is preseate as hs story of his eading of Susan Barton sory of, ‘hetsland™both aceation and an interpretation. Given he euation of ‘he readertex relation withthe power relations of autor text and ‘mater slave tno surprising that Foes tory of ending emerges as sof oppression of nerpeetaivesuhortaransa. Ths is pntcaaly ‘Sides inh eeation of he characters in Surat Barton sory. For ‘ample, Susan Barton is etladed from Robinson Crarce atgetber ‘Caso, by Keeping a journal aed being ety loquacious, is made nto & stereorpe of homo quer, man the taking animal site hs loo ‘Sum apd dit of lnguage "Yu speak if language were one o the bane ike money othe pox" (p22. and he lent Fray ischanged into a cannibal become Chistian conver ad ffl Engh spesking ‘ranservant. Accordingly, the aove, in ine with Edvara Said argu14 wc ates fet, however, it not tht the reader should ideaily with but rather Aisioctehim-or hers tom the erlettion offered by thereades inthe novel sine ti again the backdrop proved by Robinson Crusoe and theredoston of rdayo ater thattereaders story of eacing oeisto hemeaared, Ifthe eer ee the ext the sume way that Foe does ‘Solan Barton try and Suan Barton dor Fridays he does ol ealze ‘het he meaning of he teat“s eoetensie With he ean poss and snottsprodut and consequent falstoesablsh any ladon between Suthonty and te interpretative act. In ters of the analogy between Sandan eat (p47) sucha reader_eing unaware tha the esogia Principles whi infor imperil practic pertain equal to reading fractor—colonze he text int sre way that Cruto colonies the Sand ppt: 14:88) ‘ower, an aerate to the orientation offered by Foe and Sosan barton exis in the text. ‘This perapectve oflred by yet another fctonaationofarel author Conse, In Pert 1V this ctona author inflates his et, thereby bridging the ontologia al betwen asi tnd hischarcters and undermining th diac between realy” the ‘ealminvien oth ear and thor ierac—e tone real of the characters. Oxesibly, in his ial setion othe novel Cote, by beans of ths strategy, undertakes to interpret Fide sence, hee edorsing the interpretative nthoriaraninm expremed by Seas Barton “Wis for us te open Feday’s mouth and hear wha i hlds” (142). However, instead ofimposingan inerpreuton onan heteore sling the probe of Friday's sence, the ovels ending perpetuates a cores the enigma. The author dives down ta the weer ofthe ship ‘Which tought Fide othe land and in oe of he ship's cabin, nds Which brought Friday to the island and, in one of the ship's cabins, finds,Innemrarve suman 1S thority. The rally anarchist implications of the later couse ‘merge fom the fact tha the author im Part TV i deliberately ot ‘med. The we ofthe first-penon single pronoun reveat his potion subject, wich n turn rugents alata author theconeep thor” being an expression of subjeiviy.” By sing the fit person, Coes lay bare the fac thatthe adonl relation af author to teat tat of subject to object serby suggesting tat this power elation predicated by the syntactical sructre of language. By extension, all autoriaran practice made possible an underpinned by langaage, since domination {ae only oesar Goce subject poston is established inthis sytem of conventions Thur the aalegy ofthe subject entering the text i pr- feundly anarchic, because tsubvens the subj objec relaonsip, the te coalesce, an author and text merge into a single suaton ‘Sine the reader elation teeta that of ebyetooje., cam choose to ent with the erection ofeed by the pestion of he subjectinPart thereby renouncing interpretative authoritarianism and merging withthe tet in a sng itetion. If his shat Rapp, the ‘reader low the novel modify his or her consciousness or het {ths arechallenged ys anaebsu she As ading he process ‘hat forms then between rt and ie, te novel, by tansformig the way Jn whih the ear ceads wad thinks, eauies hn het to eth is bet ‘elaonship to historical ely. This, as Hutcheon maintains, ey be efit step to transforming the poitial ely (The ives in “Ts, expt the fa tht For no engaged” Om the lve of overt pobtieal coment, the eat with tent wich supplement Ritory, He ‘etaficional form poltzes the reading processed thei ose ‘onsequenceiftis agreed har parcpats in ocal change through16 sac ates 1, Tees Dovey, "Coee a His Cres The Cro shan eh n sation 163 (90) 1890. Dovey. 136 53.30, Comat, Foe Johannesburg: Ravan, 196). Page ferns in the sxiawtoinedaon “Theis vasa by some lege epee tomy paper, “Autor in Ported at ve For hated y the Departs faery ot {Carte Unies Sou Alc. awh 188 6 Tey Eaton “Machrey and Marni ier Theor Agalshe Grae Londn Vera 196 pl, gute in Davey, 1822, "hm, Cone, "The Noel Foy” pape aa th 1987 Weel Mii Boake pedi! Upaam 161 0B, 25 Conner 9. Dover. 10. Wate Alen, The Bh Novel armondswoi: Penguin, 195 Sue! Rctarson,pe,Sr Charks Grundson quoted by A. Mer sie, The Potton othe Preset Fon The Theory of he Noe Php stevie Yr: Fee Pres 9629 12 Henry Fld, Jorg andes 174 Calor: OUP, 1980 9.8 13, Unda Hate, Narcan Nora: Te Merl Pex ‘New Vere Met, 380 938. See Rober Scot, mens of Ft (Mew York OUP, 1) pp.-2 1S. Edward Sud, The Ten the Wo the Ci” Testa Steps ripeness Scania Cram, Jose. ara endon: Methuen, 1979) pps 6 Jontan Cle Ov Deconstruction: Thr and Crim Ai Src usaism, (London: Routledgr and Kegen Paul, 1983), p35.