Search

This article examines the second-person narrative mode in Marlene van Niekerk’s Agaat. Its function is explained by situating the novel within that niche known as the “you-text.” But the generic function must also be accounted for within the thematic tensions of the novel, specifically those oscillations of avowal and disavowal. So a second concern is this: how does the novel speak back to narrative theory? How does its “compulsion to tell the truth” – shadowed by South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission – trouble, expand or extend the typologies used to talk about texts where “you” consolidates narrator and narratee? Considering this consolidation as part of what might be called a narratology of the self, I suggest that Agaat’s “you” can be seen as further collapsing the roles of confessor and penitent. Such collapse reinforces the interiority of Milla’s self-addressed excoriations, since it mirrors the doubled consciousness of Protestant confession. But it also inaugurates a new type of address – the “implied you” – which turns on the reader as much as on the novel’s protagonist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers a deconstructive reading of J.M. Coetzee's Foe and attempts both to explain and to reveal the abusive writing employed by each of the 'authors' (Susan Barton, Foe, Daniel Defoe, J.M. Coetzee) in the novel. It operates within a Derridean framework, tracing the concepts of supplementation and origin in the text to indicate how the novel simultaneously collapses and conceals its own narrative practices. Like its object, the analysis presents itself as a piece of intertextual writing which questions not only the construction of the novel (and the apparent presence of meaning inherent in it), but also its own modes of composition. A detailed discussion of Susan Barton's credibility as author is proffered, and a close inspection of Coetzee's use of punctuation aims to suggest that the author, as a fictional being, is present in the novel before Part IV. Ultimately, this article attempts to illustrate, through its self-reflexive nature, the various ways in which Foe betrays the fallibility of language and representation. Die dekonstruktiewe interpretasie van J.M. Coetzee se Foe poog om beide te verduidelik en te onthul hoe die misbruikende skryfwerk van elk van die roman se 'outeurs' (Susan Barton, Foe, Daniel Defoe, J.M. Coetzee) manifesteer. Die artikel werk binne 'n Derrideaanse raamwerk en ondersoek konsepte soos supplementasie en 'oorsprong' om aan te dui hoe die teks sy eie narratiewe praktyke terselfdertyd verbrokkel en versteek. Soos die roman, word die ontleding voorgestel as 'n stuk intertekstuele skryfwerk wat nie net die konstruksie van die roman nie, maar ook sy eie konstruksie bevraagteken. 'n Gedetailleerde bespreking van Susan Barton se geloofwaardigheid as outeur word voortgesit, en 'n noukeurige inspeksie van Coetzee se gebruik van leestekens sal daarop dui dat die outeur, as fiktiewe wese, teenwoordig is in die roman voor Deel IV. Na aanleiding van sy eie self-refleksiewe natuur, sal hierdie bespreking poog om die verskillende wyses waarop Foe die feilbaarheid van taal voorstel, te illustreer., 'Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?' 'To the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime.' 'The dog did nothing in the night-time.' [...]

The paper compares T.S. Eliot's Sweeney Agonistes and Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot. Though these authors are not commonly thought of as bedfellows, it is argued that there are two overlapping concerns in the plays under discussion, namely, the idea of original sin and the significance of indeterminate endings. Unlike Eliot's, Beckett's idea of original sin is not (exclusively) the product of a Judaeo-Christian perspective, and does not necessarily imply transgression against some absolute law or being. His understanding of the consequences of original sin, however, is remarkably close to Eliot's, particularly in terms of his conception of time. In both plays there is a tendency towards stasis, which is best reflected in the unresolved endings. Eliot's and Beckett's respective inbuilt frustrations disrupt our habitual experiences and expectations in art, and their philosophy of original sin and use of indeterminate conclusions come together to loosen the grip convention has on audience and reader. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]