J M Coetzee's 'Foe'

This blog is a part of  thinking activity in which I'll be crticially comapring the works of Daniel Defoe and J.M.Coetzee's 'Foe' and Robinson Crusoe respectively. In this blog I'll try to explain my understanding. 

Comparative and Critical Analysis of Daniel Defoe’s ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and J. M. Coetzee’s ‘Foe’.

Daniel Defoe’s ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and J.M. Coetzee’s ‘Foe’ are two iconic texts that, despite being separated by centuries, engage in a compelling dialogue with one another. Defoe’s work, published in 1719, is considered one of the earliest novels in the English language and serves as an archetypal story of survival, self-reliance, and colonial expansion. Coetzee’s ‘Foe’ (1986), on the other hand, is a postmodern reimagining of this classic tale, offering a critical reflection on themes of narrative authority, representation, and the silencing of marginalised voices. This comparative analysis explores the thematic and structural contrasts between the two works, highlighting Coetzee’s nuanced critique of the original narrative.

Narrative Structure and Perspective in ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and ‘Foe’. 

‘Robinson Crusoe’ is primarily a first-person account, structured as a narrator written by the protagonist himself. This structure emphasises Crusoe as both the central figure and the ultimate authority of his own story. Through this direct, unfiltered storytelling, the novel projects a sense of realism that was innovative for its time, aligning with the Enlightenment ideals of reason and empirical observation.

Crusoe’s perspective frames him as a rational and industrious figure, embodying qualities such as self-reliance, ingenuity, and Protestant work ethic. He narrates his struggles, triumphs, and moral reflections, shaping the reader’s perception of him as a hero who overcomes adversity through hard work and faith.

In stark contrast, Coetzee’s ‘Foe’ employs a more complex, fragmented narrative structure. The story is told primarily through the perspective of Susan Barton, a castaway who, like Crusoe, seeks to tell her story of survival. However, unlike Defoe’s straightforward narrative, Barton’s account is interrupted and complicated by her interactions with the author-figure “Foe,” who represents the power of the author in shaping stories. This structure creates layers of storytelling, emphasising the idea that narratives are constructed and influenced by external forces.

‘Foe’ disrupts the linear narrative by weaving together Barton’s firsthand account, her correspondence, and meta-narrative commentary on the process of writing itself. This structure questions the reliability of a single narrator and suggests that stories can be multifaceted and shaped by who tells them, whose voices are included or excluded, and how these voices interact.

Themes of Colonialism and Power in Daniel’s and Coetzee’s work

The themes of colonialism and power are central to both Daniel Defoe’s ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and J.M. Coetzee’s ‘Foe’, but each text explores them in distinct and revealing ways. While Defoe’s 18th-century work embodies the colonial mindset of its era, Coetzee’s 20th-century response critiques and deconstructs those very themes, emphasising the overlooked and silenced voices in the colonial narrative.

Defoe’s ‘Robinson Crusoe’ is often read as a celebration of European colonialism and the associated ideals of conquest and domination. Crusoe’s journey from shipwreck survivor to ruler of his own island reflects the mindset of European expansion during the Age of Discovery.

The most significant critique in ‘Foe’ lies in the representation of Friday, who is rendered mute in Coetzee’s story. His silence is a powerful symbol of the voicelessness of colonised peoples and those who have been marginalised or erased in historical and literary narratives.Friday’s inability to tell his own story questions the legitimacy of the colonial voice and invites the reader to reflect on the stories that history chooses to tell and those it silences. Coetzee’s meta-narrative critiques the colonial practice of erasing or manipulating indigenous voices to fit the dominant narrative.

In ‘Foe’, power is examined and laid bare as something not inherent but constructed and imposed. The interactions between Barton, Foe, and Friday reveal how power operates in storytelling: who gets to speak, whose voices are amplified, and whose experiences are silenced. Friday’s silence is an unspoken protest against the simplification and erasure of entire cultures under colonial rule. 

Postmodern Commentary on Authorship in 'Robinson Crusoe' and 'Foe'

The theme of authorship, including who gets to tell a story and how narratives are constructed, plays a central role in J.M. Coetzee’s ‘Foe’, especially when analysed in relation to Daniel Defoe’s ‘Robinson Crusoe’. Defoe’s work embodies the authoritative, single-voiced narrative typical of its time, while Coetzee’s postmodern reinterpretation challenges and deconstructs this notion, offering a more fragmented, meta-narrative that questions the nature of storytelling itself.

In ‘Robinson Crusoe’, authorship is straightforward and largely unexamined. The novel is framed as an autobiographical account, with Crusoe as both the protagonist and the narrator. This type of authorship reflects the Enlightenment ideals of individualism and the power of reason. Crusoe’s narrative is presented as the ‘truth’ of his experiences, reinforcing his role as the master of his destiny and, by extension, the master of the story itself. 

Coetzee’s ‘Foe’ takes this traditional notion of authorship and turns it on its head, employing a postmodern approach that challenges the idea of a singular, authoritative narrative. In ‘Foe’, authorship is not just about telling a story; it is about who controls the narrative, who gets to be heard, and what stories remain untold.

Symbolism and Allegory in ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and ‘Foe’ 

The island symbolises both isolation and opportunity in ‘Robinson Crusoe’. For Crusoe, it becomes a microcosm where he can exercise control, build a society, and reinforce his beliefs about civilization and divine providence. The transformation of the island from a wild, unknown land into a structured and productive space symbolises the European colonial project conquering and taming the unknown.

The discovery of a human footprint on the shore is a powerful symbol of the tension between solitude and invasion. It shatters Crusoe’s perceived dominion over the island, representing both fear and the realisation that he is not alone. This symbol also foreshadows the arrival of Friday and Crusoe’s shift from complete isolation to a dynamic where he must establish dominance over another human being.

Friday himself is symbolic of the colonial subject. His role as a character reflects the European mindset of the time, where the ‘savage’ was seen as needing the guidance and conversion of the European coloniser. Crusoe’s teaching of language and religion to Friday symbolises the perceived superiority of European culture and the imposition of it onto indigenous peoples.

Defoe’s novel can also be interpreted as an allegory for the human condition, specifically from a religious and moral standpoint. Crusoe’s journey can be seen as a spiritual allegory where he undergoes a transformation from a wayward son to a penitent believer. His time on the island is a metaphor for redemption through isolation and reflection, aligning with the Puritan values of the era. His reliance on the Bible and moments of divine providence are allegorical representations of spiritual salvation and God’s guiding hand in human affairs.

In ‘Foe’, the shipwreck and the island serve as symbols of displacement and exile. While Defoe’s Crusoe turns the island into a realm of conquest and survival, Coetzee’s version questions who has the power to narrate that conquest and whose stories remain untold.

Conclusion

Coetzee’s Foe, however, deconstructs and challenges these themes through its postmodern approach. By incorporating a fragmented narrative, meta-narrative commentary, and characters such as Susan Barton and the silent Friday, Coetzee highlights the constructed nature of storytelling and questions the reliability and authority of dominant narratives.

Symbolism and allegory in both texts further underscore their thematic contrasts. While Defoe’s work uses symbols like the island and Friday to reinforce colonial and religious ideals, Coetzee’s Foe reinterprets these symbols to represent displacement, voicelessness, and the complexities of narrative control. Friday’s muteness in Foe becomes a powerful symbol of the silenced subaltern, forcing readers to reconsider who holds the power to tell stories and whose perspectives are left out.

In conclusion, while Robinson Crusoe exemplifies the confident voice of European conquest and mastery, Foe disrupts this narrative, inviting readers to question the ethics of storytelling and the power dynamics inherent in authorship. Coetzee’s novel not only revisits Defoe’s classic tale but also reframes it, prompting critical reflection on history, representation, and the enduring impact of colonial legacies in literature.

I hope this would be helpful,

Thank you.