He Said She Said: Gordimer and Coetzee on History’s Role in the Novel
My paper seeks to explore the differential representations of history in Nadine Gordimer’s The Conservationist and J.M. Coetzee’s Disgrace. These two South African novels, dealing with similar issues, grapple with the idea of Apartheid and how its historical domination should influence the narrative, if at all. Gordimer was quoted to say, “My novels are anti-apartheid, not because of my personal abhorrence of apartheid, but because the society that is the very stuff of my work reveals itself”. This outlines a very deterministic style of narrative in which history defines the novel absolutely. With this in mind, The Conservationist gives a fuller sense of the consciousness of a certain time of South Africa; history becomes the main character of the novel. In stark contrast, Coetzee claims, “History is nothing but a certain kind of story that people agree to tell each other”. It would seem that Disgrace follows this idea with its random brutality and search for meaning, in that it, to some degree, ignores history and defines itself in its own terms. Although the authors have strong words about history, the dichotomy between these novels is more complicated than relying on history versus ignoring history. My paper seeks to delve into the nuances of this relationship.
-Graham Rogers
I agree that the author’s consciousness and use of history is very important when analyzing and comparing literature that takes place in such a volatile setting. However, I see a lot more overlap in the two authors’ awareness and use of history than a stark dichotomy; both authors claim themselves to be “anti-apartheid”, and I don’t think a book that wasn’t anti-apartheid (ie pro-apartheid?) would win the Booker. I think _Disgrace_ also can be read as anti-apartheid because it, too, reveals the stuff of apartheid. The main difference is that it does so through a disarmingly objective, almost biased in the opposite direction, narrative.