Ghostly Writing: Narrative Structure in J.M. Coetzee's Foe

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The paper provides an in depth of examination of the narrative structure of J. M. Coetzee's Foe. First of all, Coetzee writes back to Robinson Crusoe, written by a British author, Daniel Defoe in the eighteenth century. In writing back to Robinson Crusoe, Foe appropriates Defoe's rhetorical devices such as an autobiographical element, journal and memoir. The appropriation is shown from the section one to the section three. Most significantly, the appropriation aims at (de)constructing the reliability of the novel in the early eighteenth century. It is, however, notable that the strategy of writing-back in Foe is not that simple. That is to say, Coetzee essentially questions the reliability of Robinson Crusoe within the postcolonial context. The subversion of the reliability begins with the third person female narrator, Susan Barton, instead of the first person narrator, Robinson Crusoe in Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. Under the gaze of Susan Barton, the reader finds that Defoe's rhetorical devices are not applied to the racial other, Friday. By pointing out the problematic representation of Friday, Foe maximizes the subversive effect of the writing-back strategy. In particular, Coetzee's idea on representing the other goes a step further. For him, Susan Barton also cannot speak of the other as well as for the other. The disappearance of the reliable narrator, Susan, in the last section reveals the radical idea of Coetzee on writing and representation. The ghostly voice of the last section questions the reliability and narrative of Susan Barton. The ghostly narrator clearly tells that any narratorial subject cannot be free from the reliability in terms of representing the other. In sum, J. M. Coetzee's Foe takes advantage of the effect of the appropriation and subversion as a postmodern parody of Robinson Crusoe. And at the same time, the narrative structure of Foe offers the reader a chance of reconsidering its textual limitation as well as a counter-discourse to the racial contract embedded in colonial narratives.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I
• II
• III
• Works cited
• Abstract