In Robinson Crusoe, Friday can communicate and he even learn some Portugues and English from Crusoe. In Foe, Friday has his tongue cut and don't allow Barton to be part of his life and has a overwhelming silence.
Coetzee choose Friday to be quiet (wether phisically or because he just decided no to do it), while Defoe made Friday more communicative.
Would it be a way of criticizing society? I mean, both Dafoe and Coetzee were doing it a way or the other, but how come "Friday", such a very important charcater on the original novel became so different on Coetzee's version?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Well, everything is different in Coetze's novel. The novel itself was written so that it provokes us to think the very kind of questions you ask, "a way of criticizing society". I certainly think Coetzee intended us to rethink and reevaluate history.
Defoe was the subject of the British Empire and loyally projected empire's values, while Coetzee is a citizen of the world, in this sense.
But boy does it irritate me that I do NOT get anything in the mail from this domain! I specifically marked that I want to receive updates on new posts and comments.
Following on from your ideas about Friday, I think Friday is a more important and powerful character in COetzee's novel as opposed to the original. In the original, he might have been able to speak but he spoke Cruso's language during the novel, he did whatever Cruso wanted him to, I think he was definitely a secondary character to Cruso. However in Foe, he is a much more powerful character through with holding his communication, he is withholding his history and his story. He does not want anyone else to interpret his story and is reticent to make relationships with anyone. We just don't know what he is thinking, and what he thinks of the other characters.
posted by Helene
I enjoy Friday's character in Foe for the fact that he can't speak. I find it interesting how he finds other means of communicating his feelings to the characters. He's a poignant character for the mere fact that he leaves us with so many questions. I think the unknowning nature is what keeps people reading this novel...It leaves us questioning and reinterpreting the author's intent for writing.
I agree with Marisa's point about Friday's inability to speak. It allows the reader to 'create' their own Friday. Since each of us can draw meanings from words, then each of us can conjure up our own Friday. Like they say in spanish "Cada cabeza es un mundo". Sorry but I don't think the english translation will have the same impact. Some things are best explained in other languages :)
By the way,,Friday happened to be my favorite character in Coetze's novel.
Posted by Rosario
I agree with you, Helene. Friday is a much more powerful character in Foe because he doesn't become involved in the storytelling. He is a mysterious character because we cannot hear his story--his identity from him. I think that the other characters have seemed so silly for me because they simply assumed Friday's storyline. No one actually sat down with Friday and figured out a way to help Friday to share his identity with them.
Posted by Darcy
Foe got Cruso's story from Susan,and that was just about the short time she spent on the island with him, not his life story which could have been more interesting. Then Foe got a partial version of Susan's story, not what he really wanted which was more info about her time in Bahia. I think Friday's story would have been the most intriguing story of all, if someone could have found a way to to get him to tell it. Isn't he really the one character we all really want to know more about? Friday's story, if told, would have added another dimension to the story and would have definately breathed new life into it.
This comment showed up in the "older post" section I re-posted it here???
Coetze's novel is postmodern and more centered on strong metaphors. So, Friday is a blatant metaphor in FOE with his absent tongue. In Defoe's novel things are more linear and realist.
Coetzee is just authentic and very unique in his writing. He uses a lot of metaphors to make his message implicit to the reader, and let the reader kind of "solve" the mysteries behind each character.
Post a Comment