It was TERRIBLE.
And I'm not some whiny little teenager who complains about every book.
Don't get me wrong I love reading!
But this was bad.
I'm 16 and I had to read it for summer reading.
Ughh
I just don't understand how it won awards.
Read it again when you're a little bit older and you'll understand it. To each his/her own of course, but this novel got the awards it deserved.
shareIt's a post-colonial novel and carries many of those themes, along with the main subject matter of the book. It's heavy on symbolism and allegory, as is with most of Coetzee's writing. Everyone has their own tastes, of course, but you may find you understand and like the book better if you accquaint yourself with some of the literary analysis that accompanies it.
Cronenberg: I got bored. That was traumatic.
At your age it would be quite difficult to relate to a lot of then content in the book, in a place that is very different from the world you likely live in. I myself read it years ago when i was a few years older than you, and there was something about it but I coulnd't get there emotionally and relate all that well. Now I read it after I've experienced a bit more of the chaos in people and the world we inhabit, and I am extremely moved by it. It is defo a really heavy book, and I can't imagine why you would have to read it for a high school summer reading assignment; surely there are more appropriate novels that would appeal and satisfy with similar affectiveness.
Trust me, keep it on your bookshelf and read it during or after university.
I'm in my thirties, and I hated it too. It was well-written. It's just that when you read a book you put your trust in the author's hands that if he makes you sit through something awful with one of his/her characters then it's for good reason. David Lurie's daughter was attacked and then lied down like a dog afterwards, she didn't even report it to the police. She was failed heroine.. It was a very frustrating book
shareA!!!!
But ask yourself - wasn't that exactly what Coetzee wanted you to feel about the characters and the story? Frustrated. Exactly.
"She laid down like a dog...she was a failed heroine" - she wasn't meant to be a heroine - the whole point was that she didn't do anything. It was implied that she felt strangely deserving of the attack, that it was a 'price to pay' for apartheid and white supremacy in the South Africa of the recent past. Pretty f*'ed up, and perhaps difficult to get to grips with and frustrating, but not for 'no good reason'. Everything in the book kinda had a point, all pretty relevant to post colonial issues.
shareWell if she laid down like dog for good reasons then she is a heroine right? and paying a price for apartheid by getting raped is no good reason as far as I am concerned. I can feel bad about apartheid without getting raped to show that. Stop presuming that I didn't aborb the fine details of this book. You have your opinion and I have mine.
shareonce u study this book at varsity and read the philosophical literature involved it makes a lot more sense. I didnt like it when i read it for enjoyment in high school, but now i understand it so much more. It makes one question how accessible this novel is though to people who haven't read the philosophical literature related to it. Although I suppose that may have just been Coetzee's intention. Also, being a South African helps, you can relate a lot more to the novel.
shareI don't think you need to read the literary criticism to understand the themes of this novel. I just think this guy needs every book to lift his spirits like a Christmas-season family movie. Real life isn't like that, and neither should literature be.
shareYes, the novel is certainly uncompromising and an uncomfortable read, regardless of whether you're white, middle-class and indebted to a heritage of colonialism - like the majority of the Western world is. I certainly came away from it and initially felt strong antipathy towards it, mainly because its characters are in many ways flawed - they are difficult to identify with, and their decisions are hard to reconcile - and because the questions the novel seems to posit remain so unanswered at its close. Yet, perhaps this actually is more truthful to life; Coetzee's unflinching style doesn't placate the reader with simplistic, patronising answers or straightforward allegorising.
Should you happen to be interested in aspects of literary criticism relating to the novel, which may supplement or enrich your experience and response to it - and perhaps to the film too, which, as yet, I have not managed to view - as an introduction, Derek Attridge writes an excellent chapter on Disgrace called "Age of Bronze, State of Grace" (a title which draws on another equally impressive novel of Coetzee's, 'Age of Iron') in his book 'J.M. Coetzee & the Ethics of Reading' which any self-respecting library will possess. In it he expands on the novel's social and historic context but emphasises how it is linked also to changing times in an increasingly globalised, late-capitalist world - implications thereof, and the ability to adapt to these. He also picks up on motifs or themes such as the role which artistic production plays in the novel (Lurie's eccentric opera) and the importance of dogs as well as touching on the ephemerality of grace and the act of literary creation.
In this, and other criticism, you will find that Coetzee's fiction, rather than encouraging allegorical readings, actually moves towards self-consciously negating or complicating such interpretations.
That the novel/film can provoke such a strong reaction, as such a mixed/middle-ish overall rating on imdb partly attests to - (I believe the novel was contentiously received, particularly in South Africa, from many quarters) - is a testament to its affective quality. I can definitely see myself dipping into this unforgettable read a second time and must watch Jacob's/Monticelli's adaptation =]
Excellent post -- well-put and agreed all-around. I will check out the essays.
shareYou don't really get it I feel. It may be that you have no knowledge of life in South Africa and that you do not understand rape issues as they affect women individually in general.
But if that's what you got out of the book and the story of that character, I'm sorry it was such a waste of your time reading it.
This really bugs me. There is a fundamental difference between David and Lucy, in the book. Lucy is not supposed to be a "heroine"; that is entirely a product of your own reading habits, and one that is a sign of an inexperienced reader or one who looks for consistency of style in literature.
Coetzee's novel is an exploration on the fundamental divide between men and women, whites and blacks, offender and victim. Lucy did not go to the police because to be avenged, in her mind, would not remove the disgrace of being raped. Allowing the rape to fester as a criminal proceeding would only prolong her pain. One of the points that Coetzee tries to make is that men, like you and I, cannot, fundamentally CANNOT understand the act of rape without the ability to experience it.
To put "trust" in the author's hands that everyone will be redeemed and the world will be a better place and everyone will live happily ever after -- well, that's just pure stupidity. Books like The Kite Runner do a disservice to reality by presenting characters and themes as black or white. There is no reality to flat characters; humanity is rich with complexity and that is what makes Coetzee such a visionary and incredible writer.
At the end of the book, Lucy (p.200) says that she will not give up the farm, because her response to her disgrace is to stand her ground, no matter the costs. On the very last page (p. 220), David gives up the dog, in an act that reflects his own idea of overcoming disgrace. Why is there a need for a fairy tale ending when the reality of the book is so powerful? Why is there a need for Disney-style redemption?
ricky-hanrden
You don't go the police to avenge rape, you go to the police to get the criminal off the street so they don't do it gain to other women. She made a bad decision, it doesn't matter how well you think Coetzee writes, people can be raped and make bad decisions afterward. You can feel bad for her and still know it was a bad decision.
Your tone is irritating b/c you aren't just putting your opinion forward, you are acting like people who don't like the book didn't have your powers of reading comprehension or intellectual astuteness. That's a mistake in a discussion.
To say that Kite runner is a disservice to reality is a compliment to the book. Maybe you watch too much reality tv or hollywood movies but fictional books aren't documentaries. Art tends to be inspiring. Coetzee has his verson of how the world turns and Khaled Hosseini has his, Hossieni's hopefulness is more clear in his writing than Coetzees. How is that a disservice? It's simply a difference.
Catharsis and denoument are parts of story telling that are important to readers and writers and you are saying to include this is Disney style redemption? Your counter points are just so narrow.
^ But why is it a weakness of the book that Lucy makes a bad decision? You can have a lack of sympathy for her and not agree with her decision, but why should that affect your reading, or your judgement as to how good the book is? If the character is badly written, her motives and decisions are unclear due to lack of development, then that usually IS a fault of the writer, but I think the argument me and others are making is that we can see what leads to her behaviour, but that it's just not entirely obvious. If you do understand her motives and the point being made, why is it a fault of the writer that you don't personally agree with them?
You say that the two writers both have different visions of the world, and I agree, but when you say Hossieni's hopefullness is more clear in his writing than Coetzee, how is it a disservice to Coetzee that his writing is more bleak? You seem to say that one is not better than the other, just different, but then seem to think that Coetzee is worse? Catharsis and denoument may be important parts of storytelling in general, but they aren't necessary in order to have a good, thought-provoking book.
I'm not wishing to provoke or condescend, just discussing :)
[deleted]
I apologize for the tone that you perceived. That said, I still disagree.
Consider "going to the police" in the context of the novel. How are the police described (directly and indirectly) by Coetzee? If I could choose one word in summary, it'd be "impotent." Perhaps Lucy made a bad decision, but keep in mind that the novel is constructed in a particular way; what matters is not what steps Lucy could have taken but what Coetzee chose for her.
Here's an article I read a few months ago that seemed entirely too appropriate for this discussion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/eudy-simelane-corrective-rape-south-africa
Now how can one think that it's as easy as "going to the police" when lesbians (like Lucy) are raped by men constantly and without fear of retribution? I saw a video in which a rapist openly says that if a woman doesn't want to be with a man, he will rape her until she changes. It's horrid, but it's reality.
Re: Kite Runner,
The Kite Runner does a disservice to reality in the same way that MLK Jr. and Lincoln are deified by histories and stripped of their humanity. MLK cheated on his wife during his time in the international spotlight (a fact passed over by virtually all textbooks) and Lincoln suffered from severe bouts of depression. To alter, amend, or withhold information is a conscious choice by any person who communicates to fit his or her own agenda. Hosseini withholds a great deal of information about the Taliban to fit his own. I believe that agenda is to increase sales while promoting "hope." Needless to say, it (conditionally, of course) would not match mine.
Yes, it is difficult to come to terms with Lucy's actions - the rape and her decision to carry the baby. I don't have the novel on me right now but I believe there is an important discussion she has with her father at one point which highlights some of her reasoning, even if David, or the reader, cannot understand it or does not agree with her justification.
In far too simplistic readings, some critics of the novel have suggested that the rape is being justified by Coetzee, that white South Africans should take the retribution exacted upon them as comeuppance for their colonial sins (apartheid). However, the issue is far more complex and Coetzee's treatment is much more nuanced than this
Another point which is interesting to think about is the equation of David's liaison/(rape) in the first section with the gang rape in the second. After all, David, a 50-something professor intoxicates a young student (19-ish), breaking social mores (large age difference relationships) as well as professional standards (professor-student relationships). The power dynamics between David and Melanie are very skewed so I don't think this can be read as particularly consensual and the novel - remember, purposefully split into two sections - has some interesting implications which can be explored with regards to rape and various character's attitudes in the changing landscape of contemporary South Africa.
I will try and find some evidence in the novel for these points and expand on them later. (From the reviews I have read the film is quite a strict adaptation of Coetzee's novel so hopefully this discussion is applying to both texts).
(Also, some really great discussions going on here which is cool to see. Definitely makes a marked departure from the typical "1000 things i learnt from..." "is this suitable for my 6 year old..." which can only be a good thing!)
well said, big kmc
shareIt's called colonialism. It's how the Americas (and in most part, Africa) got to exist as they are today. It's not a nice story, because colonialism isn't a nice story either.
shareyou're in your thirties and somehow this book went right over your head. wow.
shareAt your age!!!
It was never about the age but going through things by self.
It's probably because you're only 16. I wouldn't have recommended this book for someone as young as you. I'm not surprised you didn't get much out of it. Try it again in 10 years time perhaps.
shareHey, come on, I'm 17 and I loved this book. I started reading it on holiday and didnt put it down 'til I was finished. I dont think you have to be much older to read it. Not sure if the OP is South African, but I am, so maybe I have a perspective on it or whatevere, but I dont think so. This wasnt a difficult book, just not for everybody. The style of writing can also be very irritating, it sounds like Coetzee was trying too hard at times, maybe thats why a younger reader wouldnt like it.
sharehave you been raped?
shareRicky--Bravo. Very well-put.
Star Power--What kind of question is that? I was able to understand, appreciate, and emotionally connect with the novel, and I've never been raped. I don't know the details of JM Coetzee's personal life, but it is very likely that he has never been raped, yet was able to write "Disgrace" with extreme insight and empathy towards women.
*********************************************************************************
Something that might help anyone having trouble understanding the brilliance of "Disgrace", particularly the ending is realizing that everything that happens to and around David Lurie is in service to the very first sentence: "For a man his age, fifty-two, divorced, he has, to his mind, solved the problem of sex rather well." Everything that happens after that first sentence proves to David that despite his age, he has not solved or figured out anything, least of all sex. At the very least, Coetzee's writing is just about as cohesive as writing can be. I think this novel is brilliant.
To, the OP: Not to be rude, but what makes you think your opinion is relevant? This book is one of the most respected novels of the 1990s. Saying it's TERRIBLE doesn't really mean much, unless you can articulate logical reasons why you think this novel is undeserving of its praise. Yes, it has won awards. Do you really think all those people who appreciate it are idiots? They're probably not, so it might be a better tactic to stretch yourself and figure out why this book is so lauded, challenge yourself to rethink your knee-jerk reaction.
As has already been pointed out, saying it sucks (not the OP, but someone else) because Lucy isn't heroic is like saying, "I hate peanut butter because it doesn't taste like blueberries." I'm sure you all love to read, but maybe you should try harder or stick to something a little more simplistic. Sorry, I know this is a mean post, but come on.
I personally think that Lucy regretted not reporting the rape. There is a time in the book when she opens up to her father that he would not understand and the fact that she realises he actually does, she realises that she should have reported it, but she feels it is too late.
You can see this descision hangs heavy on her as she begins to not wash herself and she never returns to her own bed.
I think Lucy knew what was going to happen and just kept accepting it, instead of fighting. She wanted peace and for peace she reversed the Apartheid and is now under Black people's rule.
I think she is brave for staying and fighting instead of running away to Holland, but by not admitting to the bad things she is not helping either.
I think that is what Cooetzee is commenting on. In the post Apartheid South Africa it is so easy for white people to just leave. But by not admitting to the crime problem, nothing will improve. Sure it is very bad what happened in Apartheid and wrongs should be righted but this should not be by reversing the Apartheid on the white people to treat them worse than dogs and for them to accept it. We should be working together, Africans and the Western World for a stronger South Africa
Well I didn't read the book, and I probably won't after seeing the film, because even though it's very well made and acted, and I assume faithful to the text, I just couldn't muster the required amount of SOD.
I cannot believe the actions of the girl allowing herself to be treated like that, and hanging around for more: if that's some sort of atonement for things she hasn't personally done, then I would opine that she's clinically insane, and an even greater tragedy for the father, who will trapped in that madness with her....I'll not be going there on holidays in the near future either.
I think the actions of the daughter are understandable to a degree, and certainly the book maintains its SOD throughout the story. Of course there is the problem of not being able to fully identify with Lucy and her thoughts, and this is the issue the protagonist is struggling with.
I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't comment on whether it lacks some elements and thus makes Lucy's actions seem absurd - which they most certainly are from a "sane" (should be very careful about this term) viewpoint - even more so than the book.
She most definitely is "insane" to a certain degree, but that is justified in the book by her surroundings and her status as an unmarried woman. And also just to highlight the themes that Coetzee is tackling here.
A brilliant novel, I should rent the DVD since it just came out here.
I like films that make America look great, like Rambo 3. Great film.
- Bobby Stark
I hated this book too, but I'm 40-something so maybe I could try again in a decade or so when I'll be more mature...
I didn't get why anyone did anything in that book and I ended up really angry with the conclusion. Now that I've learned the writer has immigrated I can see it as an excuse (a poor one). What was he trying to say anyway? That his country is hopeless and every single sane person should leave? Duh!
Considering the heavy symbolism (from a South African vantage point) that is attached with the book I would suggest reading it once older and with some context (perhaps brush up on a bit of South African history). Since I am a bit late to the post and you are probably 25 years of age now you might appreciate the book a bit more.
You need to understand South Africa's hotbed of politics to truly appreciate what J.M Coetzee was trying to do here. There is a reason the literary alumni voted this the best book in the last 25 years and it won all the awards it did.
As an outsider (I am South African) it may not be any easy read without understanding the politics that go with the story. Year in, year out hundreds of white farmers are brutally murdered and raped in such fashion as described in this book. Lucy is part of the new South Africa that suffers from "white guilt" and thereby must atone for her sins for simply being white in a country where white people brutally marginalized the indigenous local population in much the same way young Germans suffer for the sins of their fathers.
David Lurie is a relic from a bygone era, a man shaped by apartheid even if he himself didn't necessarily outright support the ideals. He is the typical archetype colonial white man who takes what he wants without asking. The Disgrace in the story is not only simply David Luries fall from grace thanks to the affair he embarks upon with the student or the disgrace of Lucy's gang rape by the three young black men on the farm but its also a description of a country. As a country South Africa was thoroughly "disgraced" for its apartheid system and the novel picks away at the sores of the our countries violent past (without going into any history lessons and most if not all are simply conveyed through the actions of its characters) that still fester like raging boils post-apartheid as we as a nation continue to disgrace the ideals and visions of a kind-hearted but perhaps naively optimistic man (Nelson Mandela) who once upon a time saw a bright future for us - his "rainbow nation".
The whole animal shelter subtext is also symbolism on how you can take your queues from a society around how they treat their animals and how men can be often compared to being "dogs" as is in the case of David Luries lurid and objectionable behavior (especially around young woman and the prostitutes he frequents) to the three young black men who violently defile Lucy in the books most painful and retching section and how she comes to terms with it.
But the book is also about redemption so in the end there is hope (or at least we sincerely hope so since the novel directly appeals to the human side in all of us); it does leave the reader with many ethical questions about what it actually means to be human in this kind of society.
It's a tough read I agree (it is uncompromisingly bleak to the point of despair) but to call it TERRIBLE is like saying the Mona Lisa is underwhelming.