An Essay on the Nobel Lecture given by J.M. Coetzee in 2003 while receiving the honour: As a part of a literature course
Link to the Lecture.
Nobel laureate J. M. Coetzee is well known for his characteristic style of exploring the human emotions and internal chaos of the process of thinking and decision making. His well known works have all taken place in the saddest and difficult of places like Africa where crime and famine are day to day business. So, it enables him to dive deep to the very basic thoughts of the protagonist and bring out the true emotions that make up a human being. Also, his opinionated stands in his works is clearly evident from the way he makes his protagonist think, in many ways trying to chalk out his own image in them and trying to communicate to the reader about himself. This is not surprising as he has avoided media attention throughout his life, choosing to remain in isolation while his writings claimed praise all over the world. He was awarded the Nobel Prize
in Literature in the year 2003.
He chooses to be open and blunt in his writings, but only to the extent of the expressions of his characters. His use of language and his carving out of symbols and images is very subtle and may seem beautiful at times. He is especially known for his opinion towards the issue of animal rights, where he takes a clear stand of non-violence against them, evident in itself with him being a vegetarian till now. However, the complex human emotions that he portrays in his works show an overall new side of him. His characters travel through paths full of dilemmas which are not artificial, but very natural and arise in almost everyone’s life. It is only after reading them that we remember the incidents when we had a similar one. Also, they portray more or less the choices Coetzee himself had to make in his life, which is otherwise very difficult to know given that he is too shy to speak publicly. Perhaps, this is the reason he chose not to exclaim his views on writing
or his experiences or motivations in his nobel lecture, but tell a very imaginative and creative story about a fictitious characters who observes his life and that of others.
Coetzee talks of Robinson Crusoe, the character from Daniel Dafoe’s novel of the same name. It is about the shipwrecking of Robin’s ship on a remote deserted island and his staying there for 26 years. He is accompanied only by his parrot, who dies eventually, and a black man named Friday, whom he makes his servant. However, Coetzee does not speak of him as a character, but a real person and tells about his life after he has been rescued and while he is living in England. He is reflecting back on his time on the island and he has become wealthy after his adventures on the island have been published by himself. He remains a secluded man who is not interested in his marriage and likes silence. He is not disappointed by the death of his wife and tries not to meet anyone. He keeps writing which is something he has taken up as a recreational activity and at the same time, he keeps reading the accounts and journals sent to him by his man. This man of his unnamed.
Coetzee, through Robin, has tried to unwind a delicate relationship between a writer and his characters. He has tried to say that it is not always that the writer is the master of the character. Sometimes, it is the character itself that governs the thinking and actions of the writer. Robin’s man is also a writer, a journalist. He keeps roaming around the island of Britain and keeps sending journals and accounts of his experiences. He sends an account of a place names fen, where duck decoys are being raised up to lure fowls from Holland and Germany to come to Fen country and then, fall prey to the men who rule fen. This reference clearly brings a major emotion that Coetzee uses in his works. The obvious issue raised is that of animal rights whichare shown to be nothing. The fowls are lured and then slaughtered by the men, and when they do
not find plenty in their own country, they bring them from outside and then do the same. It is in direct relation to the role animal play in most of his works. In many of them, he shows killing of animals by humans and though he does not take a rigid stand on it, the rawness with which he describes it clearly shows his opinion.
The second account sent by Robin’s man is about an engine in Halifax. Men are be-headed on that engine with the use of heavy blade held up by a small pin. The executioner would take out the pin and the head would cut-off. However, the custom had it that after that pin has been removed and before it descends down, if the man whose head lies on the cross-base can leap to his feet, escape the executioner and cross the river down the hill, he will be set free. However, this never happened in Halifax. Robin reflects on the account, thinking that although god’s grace is swift but the heavy metal blade, greased with tallow is swifter. How can we escape it? He tries to think of himself in this situation when he was shipwrecked on the island. Although god’s grace was with him, but when something bad has to happen, it happens swifter than the grace can save you.
The third account that comes across is that of a business man who has a good business in London and who has to travel a lot because of his work. Now, his entire work is ruined because the Thames river of London rises on winters and floods the entire city, destroying his work. He is very poor, and cornered by debtors like crows. Or, let him be a family person in London in the 1660‘s and let his town be swarmed by plague and he has to stay away from his family and he can only call to them, but they do not respond. His entire happiness has been put to an end. Such an account distinctly refers to Robin’s own life when everything of his was distanced from him due to the shipwrecking. He lived away from everything for 26 years. He used to call from the island to the waters but no one replied or listened to him. He considers himself to be the man
who had everything but then lost everything.
These accounts puts Robinson in an interesting despairing situation. He feels that the reporter who is ending in all these accounts is somehow his master whose each account somehow describes his life and the situation he has been in. Or are they comrades who are just inter-wined somehow? He is trying to compare himself with the man of his who seem to be writing on similar lies, both of them re-iterating real stories with similar themes. he longs to meet this man, in flesh and blood and take a stroll with him, but he fears that they will never meet as they are like two ships sailing in the contrary directions, not noticing each other. He fears that they may not even have time to wave to each other while passing.
With the recount of the interesting pairing between Robinson and his man, Coetzee rings out the very dilemma brought about to a writer, that of exploring oneself. Ultimately, everyone tries to find answers, to create characters and stories out of themselves. He tries to ask that is the writer good at his job or the character good at getting the job well done? Although he has tried to being about this essential theme of his lecture through an almost literal scenario and an almost direct question, the unclarity of the answer allows both of the propositions to co-exist and evolve together.
Link to the Lecture.
Nobel laureate J. M. Coetzee is well known for his characteristic style of exploring the human emotions and internal chaos of the process of thinking and decision making. His well known works have all taken place in the saddest and difficult of places like Africa where crime and famine are day to day business. So, it enables him to dive deep to the very basic thoughts of the protagonist and bring out the true emotions that make up a human being. Also, his opinionated stands in his works is clearly evident from the way he makes his protagonist think, in many ways trying to chalk out his own image in them and trying to communicate to the reader about himself. This is not surprising as he has avoided media attention throughout his life, choosing to remain in isolation while his writings claimed praise all over the world. He was awarded the Nobel Prize
He chooses to be open and blunt in his writings, but only to the extent of the expressions of his characters. His use of language and his carving out of symbols and images is very subtle and may seem beautiful at times. He is especially known for his opinion towards the issue of animal rights, where he takes a clear stand of non-violence against them, evident in itself with him being a vegetarian till now. However, the complex human emotions that he portrays in his works show an overall new side of him. His characters travel through paths full of dilemmas which are not artificial, but very natural and arise in almost everyone’s life. It is only after reading them that we remember the incidents when we had a similar one. Also, they portray more or less the choices Coetzee himself had to make in his life, which is otherwise very difficult to know given that he is too shy to speak publicly. Perhaps, this is the reason he chose not to exclaim his views on writing
or his experiences or motivations in his nobel lecture, but tell a very imaginative and creative story about a fictitious characters who observes his life and that of others.
Coetzee talks of Robinson Crusoe, the character from Daniel Dafoe’s novel of the same name. It is about the shipwrecking of Robin’s ship on a remote deserted island and his staying there for 26 years. He is accompanied only by his parrot, who dies eventually, and a black man named Friday, whom he makes his servant. However, Coetzee does not speak of him as a character, but a real person and tells about his life after he has been rescued and while he is living in England. He is reflecting back on his time on the island and he has become wealthy after his adventures on the island have been published by himself. He remains a secluded man who is not interested in his marriage and likes silence. He is not disappointed by the death of his wife and tries not to meet anyone. He keeps writing which is something he has taken up as a recreational activity and at the same time, he keeps reading the accounts and journals sent to him by his man. This man of his unnamed.
Coetzee, through Robin, has tried to unwind a delicate relationship between a writer and his characters. He has tried to say that it is not always that the writer is the master of the character. Sometimes, it is the character itself that governs the thinking and actions of the writer. Robin’s man is also a writer, a journalist. He keeps roaming around the island of Britain and keeps sending journals and accounts of his experiences. He sends an account of a place names fen, where duck decoys are being raised up to lure fowls from Holland and Germany to come to Fen country and then, fall prey to the men who rule fen. This reference clearly brings a major emotion that Coetzee uses in his works. The obvious issue raised is that of animal rights whichare shown to be nothing. The fowls are lured and then slaughtered by the men, and when they do
not find plenty in their own country, they bring them from outside and then do the same. It is in direct relation to the role animal play in most of his works. In many of them, he shows killing of animals by humans and though he does not take a rigid stand on it, the rawness with which he describes it clearly shows his opinion.
The second account sent by Robin’s man is about an engine in Halifax. Men are be-headed on that engine with the use of heavy blade held up by a small pin. The executioner would take out the pin and the head would cut-off. However, the custom had it that after that pin has been removed and before it descends down, if the man whose head lies on the cross-base can leap to his feet, escape the executioner and cross the river down the hill, he will be set free. However, this never happened in Halifax. Robin reflects on the account, thinking that although god’s grace is swift but the heavy metal blade, greased with tallow is swifter. How can we escape it? He tries to think of himself in this situation when he was shipwrecked on the island. Although god’s grace was with him, but when something bad has to happen, it happens swifter than the grace can save you.
The third account that comes across is that of a business man who has a good business in London and who has to travel a lot because of his work. Now, his entire work is ruined because the Thames river of London rises on winters and floods the entire city, destroying his work. He is very poor, and cornered by debtors like crows. Or, let him be a family person in London in the 1660‘s and let his town be swarmed by plague and he has to stay away from his family and he can only call to them, but they do not respond. His entire happiness has been put to an end. Such an account distinctly refers to Robin’s own life when everything of his was distanced from him due to the shipwrecking. He lived away from everything for 26 years. He used to call from the island to the waters but no one replied or listened to him. He considers himself to be the man
who had everything but then lost everything.
These accounts puts Robinson in an interesting despairing situation. He feels that the reporter who is ending in all these accounts is somehow his master whose each account somehow describes his life and the situation he has been in. Or are they comrades who are just inter-wined somehow? He is trying to compare himself with the man of his who seem to be writing on similar lies, both of them re-iterating real stories with similar themes. he longs to meet this man, in flesh and blood and take a stroll with him, but he fears that they will never meet as they are like two ships sailing in the contrary directions, not noticing each other. He fears that they may not even have time to wave to each other while passing.
With the recount of the interesting pairing between Robinson and his man, Coetzee rings out the very dilemma brought about to a writer, that of exploring oneself. Ultimately, everyone tries to find answers, to create characters and stories out of themselves. He tries to ask that is the writer good at his job or the character good at getting the job well done? Although he has tried to being about this essential theme of his lecture through an almost literal scenario and an almost direct question, the unclarity of the answer allows both of the propositions to co-exist and evolve together.
Comments
Post a Comment