An exploration into the discourses used within J. M. Coetzee's "Dusklands"

Discourse within literature is the framework for how the main speaker or protagonist is able to communicate and what they are able to communicate. The standard definition of discourse is: written or spoken communication or debate; although it is more suitable to understand is as a framework which shapes social life and is centred on events. Discourse, which comes in various forms, is heavily reliant on what is desired, which is usually political and sexual in nature, and this shapes what the main speaker of protagonist is allowed to play.  Using J.M. Coetzee’s, Dusklands, an exploration into how discourse shapes what a protagonist I sable to say will be conducted.

Could you offer some references here for your definitions of "discourse"? Foucault's reflections on the term are distinct from earlier accepted definitions ... it is worth researching this closely. 
 
It is required that an understanding of discourse is achieved and then an analysis of the discourse within, Dusklands, can be done.  The novel consists of two novellas, with each novella having its own “protagonist”: Eugene Dawn in, “The Vietnam Project” (novella one), and Jacobus Coetzee in, “The Narrative of Jacobus Coetzee” (novella two). Both characters are in two different time periods, with Eugene present in 20th century American imperialism and Jacobus present in 18th century Dutch colonialism with each having their own political agenda. With novel containing two protagonists and two stories, exploring the discourse within the book can be done through three fundamental questions:

Here I feel that your comments are a little undeveloped. How would you desribe the "desires" of each protagonist/ narrator? Which "discourses" are at play here? (the obvious ones are American imperialism, and  Dutch colonialist at the Cape. There are more!). 

I would like to know much more here about the content of the two narratives. The notion of parody, which you raise in the summary of Atwell's article, is clearly key ... Why would Coetzee play with historical records in this "metafictional" mode? What is the point? 

1. While the discourse is within the realm of desire, is it the same for both characters?

2. How does the discourse shape what
each character is able to say and not say?

3. Is using two characters able to somehow to transcend these limitations? And if so, how is this achieved?

In order to answer these questions, reading and exploring the discourse within, Dusklands, will not be enough. In order to properly explore these questions, I will consult David Attwell’s, The labyrinth of my history, as well as Derek Attridge’s, Ethical Modernism: Servants as Others in J.M. Coetzee’s Early Fiction.

David Attwell’s: The labyrinth of my history
Dusklands deals with the violence of colonialism and the legacy it leaves behind with its heirs and does so by critiquing colonialism and imperialism through the use of parody. Attwell argues that the novel is a break from the framework of colonialism and its intended discourse, and he is able to do this by giving the two protagonists a reflective consciousness: an ontological-metaphysical approach. The ontological-metaphysical aspects of his characters allow for the questioning of being and make the characters transparent, drawing the reader in. With both Eugene Dawn in “The Vietnam Project” (novella one) and Jacobus Coetzee in “The Narrative of Jacobus Coetzee” (novella 2) committing horrible acts against humanity, their character allow for the reader to be drawn into the events of their actions. With events being so crucial to understanding discourse, it is apparent that bringing the reader into the literature is important in determining what the characters are able and unable to say. This drawing in of the reader is further explored by Derek Attridge in, Ethical Modernism: Servants as Others in J.M. Coetzee’s Early Fiction.

Derek Attridge:  Ethical Modernism: Servants as Others in J.M. Coetzee’s Early Fiction
Duslkands focuses on inviting the reader ethically. There is an emphasis on the ‘event’, where discourse shapes social life. Coetzee uses an event, being the parody of events, to draw the reader in ethically. Coetzee has given the protagonists of the novel the ability to communicate to the reader through their actions within events and their reflections regarding events. By juxtaposing American imperialism and Dutch colonialism, and essentially juxtaposing the actions of the protagonist and those characters who are estranged, seen as the “other”, he is able to draw in the reader ethically and communicate with the reader beyond conventional discourse.

Through the use of these questions regarding discourse and the works of Atwell and Attridge, exploration into the discourse used within Coetzee’s, Dusklands, and how it shapes what the protagonists or main speaker says, can be done.

Works I intend on using:

These are useful readings as a starting point for your project, but there are many more. I think it would be useful to select particular passages from each narrative for close reading. 
 
Coetzee, J. M. Dusklands. Reprint, ed. Michigan: Penguin Books, 1996.

Attridge, Derek. “Ethical Modernism: Servants as Others in J. M. Coetzee’s Early Fiction.” Poetics Today, 25:4 (2004): 553-671.

Attwell, David. “’The labyrinth of my history’: J. M. Coetzee’s Dusklands.” Novel: A Forum on Fiction, 1 (1991): 7-32.

Black Hamlet by Wulf Sachs - Essay

A psychological insight into the life of a Black Hamlet

Black Hamlet by Wulf Sachs is the story of the relationship between Sachs and a Manyika healer-diviner, John Chavafambira, who moved from Zimbabwe to South Africa in the 1920s. First published in 1937, the story encounters the “complexities of the encounter [repetition?] between black and white” and the tragedies of the poor trying to scrape together a living “in the new urban centres of southern Africa” as segregation becomes more ingrained (Heald 294).

John tells his story to someone else [to Sachs?]. His story is in the end being told through the interpretation or experience of someone else. John's story was being told through sessions of “free associations” and his reaction to these associations would also be analysed (Sachs 72). The term free association is a psychological term which is when clients of a psychologist speak freely as things come to mind without self-censorship (Corey 67). Clients speak about “their feelings, experiences, associations, memories, and fantasies” to the psychologist which is then analysed" (Corey 67). The introduction to the book by Jacqueline Rose includes some sound scholarly commentary on psychoanalytic methods. These are distinct from the methods of general psychology, and it is worth researching them in depth. An excellent introduction to literary approaches to psychoanalysis is Kaja Silverman's "The Subject of Semiotics". (Our library has a copy).

John has the power of telling his story as he wishes through 'free association' but his power is limited to the setting he is in when telling his story. John also has the trust that his story is being told truthfully because he is not writing his own story. Given the above, I would like to analyse the power the Sachs has in the psychological setting and the effect thereof on John's story and how this either limits or shapes him as a character. Good  - this is a book which records both the necessity and the pitfalls of discursive authority - here the authority of a man who is writer, doctor, and psychoanalyst - a representative of what Sachs himself terms "white medicine"?

Sachs starts John's story at an interesting place when “he had left his native kraal for the Union of South Africa” (76). Sachs explains that his was a significant part to start at because it was the “turning point of [John's] life” (77). Sachs analysed the starting point of John's story stating the reason for starting there but Sachs is also in control as to making the choice to start the story at that point. Here I feel Sachs holds the power over John's story. Through this John is allowed to tell his story and develop his story.

Sachs analyses John from a western point of view, [WHICH] this may also have an influence on how John is portrayed and written about. Sachs uses what, Saul Dubow calls, the Hamlet syndrome to analyse John (Dubow 542). By using this, Sachs argues that John “suffers from a tragic inability to cope with the rational demands of modern western life” (Dubow 542).

John’s “inability to cope” with western demands links back to colonialism (Dubow 542). Sachs uses a western understanding of John's culture and seems to come with an “all knowing” understanding of life to analyse a “native” in South Africa about his life. This can already lead to prejudice and preconceived ideas about life that everyone has to adhere to.

In my essay I would like to focus and try to answer the following questions:

How much control does John hold in telling his own story?

Can Sachs manipulate John's story for his own benefit?

Does the language of the text benefit John or Sachs or both of them?

I still have to look for a text to analyse from Black Hamlet.

There are a number of fine articles about this text available. Do have a look on the Google Drive, where I have posted a few. I recommend Rose's introduction as a starting point. Try to avoid background resources on psychology that are not specifically literary in approach. Perhaps it would be useful to start by trying to understand the concept of "Hamletism" as elucidated towards the end of Sach's narrative. What is "Hamletism" and in what ways does Sachs feel that this diagnosis "fits" Chavafambira's life?   

Works Cited:

Corey, Gerald. Theory and Practice of Counselling and Psychotherapy (SA Edition). UK:

Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, Inc, 2014. Print.

Dubow, Saul. “Wulf Sachs's Black Hamlet: A Case of 'Psychic Vivisection'?” African Affairs 92.369

(1993): 519-556. JSTOR. Web. 23 March 2016.

Heald, Suzette. “Review.” African Affairs 96.383 (Apr. 1997): 293-295. JSTOR. Web. 23 March

2016.

Sachs, Wulf. Black Hamlet. USA: The John Hopkins University Press, 1996. Print.