"What a pity that to live in times like these a man must be ready to live like a beast" (99).
Michael K. is yet another one of Coetzee’s peculiar characters, whose journey into the wild we witness in Life & Times of Michael K. But is this really a journey into the wild or a failed attempt at escaping from the wild? Coetzee plays this make-believe game again: just like in Waiting for the Barbarians, at the surface, a distinction between the civilized and the uncivilized is drawn, but when we dig a little deeper, the boundaries between the two become fuzzy. We are left to wonder where civilization stops and barbarianism begins, where true wildness lies.
From the moment of his birth, Michael K is different, he is an other. Abandoned by society, and even by his own mother until she needs him, Michael leaves the so-called ‘civilization’ and goes into the mountains. In his “Toward an Ethics of Silence: Michael K,” Duncan McColl Chesney explains, “The times force K into bestiality…” K is the product of the society that rejects him. What’s so peculiar about his case, is that, unlike many ‘outcasts’, Michael doesn’t recognize himself as a victim, as an outcast; he deals with things in a matter-of-fact, at times instinctive way. Michael’s journey comes to a full circle when he is returned 'home' to Cape Town. There, lying on a cardboard, he thinks, “I am more like an earthworm…Or a mole…But a mole or an earthworm on a cement floor?” (182)
How can a ‘gardener’ survive concrete?
How can a ‘gardener’ survive concrete?
Reading this novel, I was reminded of the 2007 movie “Into the Wild”, where the young protagonist, Christopher, sets off on a journey across the United States, settling in Alaska. Leaving civilization behind, he searches for a new meaning in life, and believes to have found happiness in a remote place, in the wild away from wildness. He dies at the end, alone and starved, paying for his new-found freedom with his life. His ashes are returned 'home'.
Is there no escape from the concrete grip of ‘civilization’, from its wildness, is there no escape from society, even when you reject it, even when it rejects you...
Photo by Stefan Janeschitz
From: Norma Perez
ReplyDeleteHi Hudit,
Upon reading your blog post, I was struck by your arguments, but in particular when you mention that when analyzing Michael K and his experiences, “We are left to wonder where civilization stops and barbarianism begins, where true wildness lies” (Simonyan). I was then contemplating on the fence itself, in an attempt to define that bridging line between civilization and barbarianism. We can thus not only analyze the physicality of a fence and its purpose, but also the metaphysical-ity of the fence itself. The terms fence and wire are mentioned over and over again in the novel. The first explanation is the most obvious, it serves as the separation of the “other,” as you mentioned. In the labor camp, Michael and those who are believed to be the “weaker race,” are kept in, as we tend to cage wild animals so they are not roaming loose. These animalistic categorizations are ascribed to the laborers, who are ordered to be shot at if they attempt an escape. Michael describes the references of the fence as a form of containment through a conversation with a guard. He illustrates, “ ‘You climb the fence,’ the [guard] said, ‘and you have left your place of abode. Jakkaalsdrif is your place of abode now’” (Coetzee 78). The threats then become more callous when the guard says,“ You climb the fence and I’ll shoot you, I swear to God I won’t think twice, so don’t try” (85). At one point, Michael classifies the people within the fence as trapped monkeys, justifying Michael’s feelings of of “otherness.”
The second aspect I would briefly like to explore is the metaphysical aspects of the fence as that diversion between civilization and barbarianism. In her book, Borderlands/ La Frontera: The New Mestiza, Gloria Anzaldua refers to metaphysics as both a physical place and a metaphor when discussing La Frontera. Specifically, Anzaldua writes, “the Borderlands are physically present wherever two or more cultures edge each other, where people of different races occupy the same territory, where under lower, middle and upper classes touch, where the space between two individuals shrinks with intimacy” (19). Anzaldua places specific focus on space and on the congregation of different people within that same space. In Coetzee’s novel, space too takes an important role in the “distinction between the civilized and the uncivilized.” The fact that the “civilized” are in the outer part of the fence looking into the inside part of the fence where the “uncivilized” are kept, suggests an ongoing history that marks the contingencies of chaos and destruction marked by the forced separation of space.
Your post was very interesting. Thank you for sharing.
Norma Perez
(Hope this works- I’ve been trying to post since yesterday, but certain settings have made that a headache)
ReplyDeleteI read The Life and Times of Michael K, the book Into the Wild, and have seen the film adaption of Into the Wild. It’s a very interesting connection when looking at how the goal for Michael K, whether consciously or unconsciously, is to be stripped away from either civilization or the rules his environment have made him follow. When this connection is made, there is also a transcendentalist connection to the connection between man and the wild. After observing the presentation yesterday in regards to what the ending signifies, when he is starving and on the break of life and death, his condition is very much like the control Thoreau mentions in Walden- “I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world” (It has also been documented that Chris was a big fan of Transcendentalism and the bug guys like Whitman, Emerson and Thoreau)
However, the stark difference that I see between Michael and Chris comes in to play when looking at motive- K seems to be put into a position that finds reconciliation in solitude, free from responsibility, after being physically and emotionally tormented from his previous life, while Chris consciously went out to find the answers for life and how to make sense of living life that is absent of civilization. I agree that the two have similarities, but the reasons why they accomplish what they do makes them very different.
What do you think?
(The last comment was posted by Rolando Rubalcava)
ReplyDeleteRolando,
ReplyDeleteThe differences of course are obvious- the differences in circumstances and in 'motive'- but the main similarity is, the way I see it, in the fact that neither one accomplishes anything. This is where your reading of these two texts and mine seem to disagree. Sure, one could read heroism in Chris' death, or in Michael's stoicism through all the hardships. But in Michel's case, the fact that most of his action is unconscious, makes it difficult to consider his journey heroic. And in Chris' case, his determination is replaced by despair at the end, as before he dies he regrets having gone on this difficult journey. His feelings of regret take away from the pathos of the moment, and his death therefore is not a defeat (for defeat would imply a fight). Chris comes to a physical barrier he's unable to cross, or he would take the first chance to get back to 'civilization' (I haven't read the book, just seen the movie, so I don't know how it is in the book).
hudit, it sounds like you are saying that heroism has to be intentional. but doesn't that, to some extent, make someone not heroic (i.e., if they are trying to be a hero)? couldn't we look at effect/result as much as at intent (!)? in fact, might we not say that coetzee's disregard for intent (and the intent of his characters) is precisely what's so subversive? it seems that is a true challenge to western metaphystics and to puritan work ethics. there has been quite a bit of scholarship lately on the politics of laziness, resisting efficiency, etc. in some way, if michael k. had a clear goal in mind he'd be buying into the very structures and epistemologies that he is (unconciously) resisting, no? so the unconcious here is the ultimate transgression? i don't know if any of this makes sense... i'm brainstorming....
ReplyDeleteYes! This makes perfect sense. I had never thought of unconscious resistance as the ultimate tool for shattering. It's even more potent than 'planned' resistance, for 'planned' resistance can be met with a higher and stronger level of oppression and thus could be eliminated, whereas unconscious resistance can't be eliminated because it's unaware of its own existence. But I would still not call it 'heroism', as I believe this word entails intent. I don't know what I would call it instead...
ReplyDelete