Disgrace: A General Overview

What is your reaction to the novel? What did you like about it and what did you dislike about it? Does it deserve the international acclaim it has received? Would you recommend it to others?

If there's one thing I've learned about books, through personal experience and not because of some lame cliché, is never to judge a book by its cover. According to the cover of my edition of Disgrace, a novel written by Nobel-prize winning author J.M. Coetzee (interestingly pronounced cut-ZEE-uh), the twisted tale of a man's thorny relationship with his daughter won him the Booker prize of 1999. The title also captured my interest as it promised a juicy storyline, the one thing the novel actually did deliver during the first few chapters.

One aspect of the novel I really appreciated was the way Coetzee gave all of his characters such depth. Whether it's David's unorthodox sexual cravings or his daughter Lucy's hardheaded temperament, the author keeps the reader engrossed in his novel through these 3-dimensional descriptions. I couldn't bear or understand Lucy's submissive behavior. David's revolting thoughts make the reader feel sympathetic towards him at times and disgusted at others. The plot of the novel starts off brilliantly: David's hush-hush relationship with Melanie, the scandal and the rape. After those interesting happenings, the plot becomes somewhat frustrating and slow-moving. I found myself dragging my feet through the last 100 pages, dreading every minute of it. Coetzee's writing style isn't demanding and its simple structure makes it an enjoyable read.

The Booker Prize is awarded each year to the best original full-length novel. I'm not really one to judge if this novel deserves it or not since I don't think I've really grasped the messages hidden by the author. All I know is that Coetzee must have done something quite special to be the only author to have won the Booker Prize twice! Would I recommend it to somebody else? Personally, I didn't think it was a bundle of fun to read and I probably wouldn't recommend it to anyone looking for a fun read. This is strictly academic reading material and should stay so.

I included this picture since it looks like Lucie's house as I'd imagined it. Its deserted and tranquil atmosphere very much fits the description.

Is William Shakespeare overrated?

As was once said in our English class and as I've heard being said time and time again at the mere utterance of his name, William Shakespeare is a literary phenomenon of our time, and one of the greatest for that matter. It has been recorded that Shakespeare's work is the most-quoted throughout the history of English literature. His work has this timeless appeal to it as it has been criticized, interpreted, and re-interpreted over the years without ever having been completely understood thus leaving it open to countless interpretations. When the name "Shakespeare" is "googled" on the internet, 41 million websites related to the topic can be found. Before scrutinizing his work that will, no matter our personal feedback, eventually be spoon-fed to us by our curriculum, we must ask ourselves the following: Is Shakespeare overrated?

Since I am not well-exposed to Shakespeare's work, I am going to tackle this subject by explaining his impact on history and literature. Let's begin with one rather remarkable but trivial fact about his accomplishments: this literary genius has invented over 1700 words in the English language as well as hundreds of expressions used in everyday conversation. Shakespeare movies are so numerous that they form their own sub genre in the film industry. It is estimated that 250 Shakespeare movie adaptations have been produced, proving that moviegoers appreciate his story-telling abilities. He influenced every generation of writers since his death. John Keats, a 19th century poet, "was so influenced by Shakespeare that he kept a bust of the Bard beside him while he wrote, hoping that Shakespeare would spark his creativity." Many statues and memorial of the famous poet can be found all over the World. The memorial statues in Westminster Abbey and in New York City's Central Park are two of the most celebrated. His impact on theater is remarkable, having written 37 plays throughout his entire career. He created the romantic tragedy genre by combining tragedy and comedy in Romeo and Juliet.

Someone of Shakespeare's stature would not be read, studied and considered relevant 400 years after his death. Mysteries surrounding his sexuality and to whom his sonnets were truly addressed are still being investigated in modern times. Some may say that he is overrated because he wrote in the language of his day which is different than the current usage. His messages are subtle and interpretation of these messages is just as difficult to pinpoint. Shakespeare is, by all means, a literary genius and the praise given to his work is well-deserved. Chapeau bas!

Sonnet #2 (just because the mood struck)

Sweet uncertainty

When the use slowly eases into abuse
When irrelevant words are so simply strung together
The relentless efforts, I see, have come to no use
Was that our final endeavor?

Hands clasped and warmed in dim light
Exchanging futile glances
Impaired was their telling of wrong and right
Forever willing to take chances

Not long after had they seen the damsel in distress
Crawling into an abyss of torment
Had she earlier known the cause of her stress
Our mistress would have avoided all descent

Cut and suture, split then mend
What else could be more fun than to pretend?

Sonnet #1

Wobbly Grounds

The mountain grass lay beside me
Its gaze so calm and brief
But over the mountain I could not see
The village’s palpable grief

The winds blew harsh and I asked thee
“Might you be the mountain chief?”
Your stare was harsh, you glared at me
Like an inferno with the devil’s belief

Lightning flashed across the sky
I clutched my knees to my chest
Hoping my fright would pass me by

Still, the terror remained abreast

I’ve ground the mountain chief to dust
Good courage, now myself I trust

A Bit About the Bard

We began the second term by embarking on poetry. Very challenging since I am, until now, unfamiliar with Shakespeare's work (shame, isn't it?). Of course, I know much about the epic writer. I've watched the movie "Shakespeare in Love", heard about Romeo & Juliette and much more. According to Wikipedia, "one of the most well known sonnet writers is Shakespeare who wrote 154 sonnets."

We've been introduced to a couple of his sonnets and now must reflect upon the following question: How do you feel about sonnets as a poetic form? Do you like their structure or do you find them too limiting?
I would be lying if I said that I found Sonnet 1 to be an easy read. Despite it being concise, I found myself reading certain expressions that I found hard to swallow over and over again. Verses like "And only herald to the gaudy spring" (10) were unclear until I had them explained to me. Shakespeare, known for his vulgar messages, subtly hints this in his sonnet: "Feed'st thy light'st flame with self-substantial fuel". The interpretation of his verses differ from one person to the other. Some may argue that this is exactly what makes his work fascinating but I personally do not appreciate how he hasn't put his thoughts into simpler terms. The overall idea, once explained, can be quite interesting: beauty, procreation of human life and self-consumption.

The use of politically incorrect words such as "niggarding" (12), which means to hoard in context, demonstrate just how much the English language has evolved since Shakespeare's times. The difficult language makes the poem demanding. Also, there is a repetition in the pattern of rhymes throughout the poem: a - b - a - b. This makes the poem interesting to read aloud. All in all, I was disappointed with my first encounter with his work. But then again it may be too early to judge. Let's give the good old bard a shot before giving up on him.

Shame On Lurie?

What do you think of the protagonist, David Lurie? Is he a sympathetic figure or just revolting?" is the question I chose to answer. After whooshing through the first 10 chapters of the novel (quick and interesting read, I must say), Lurie's degenerate and sex-driven character is plain for the reader to see. The voyeur-like manner in which he tends to describe those around him is questionable. It makes one wonder about his intentions. His needy behavior and his thoughts, so full of self-doubt and indecision, makes one feel sympathetic towards Lurie for his naiveté which can somehow be endearing.

The opening line of the novel makes reference to his sexual frustration: "For a man of his age, fifty-two, divorced, he has, to his mind, solved the problem of sex rather well." (1) At first, his attachment to the courtesan, Soraya, and to his student, Melanie Isaacs, seems revolting. "He doesn't act on principle but on impulse" (33); this quote makes his behavior more understandable. It points out that Lurie is, in fact, not the "bad guy" but a confused and rather gloomy soul.

David Lurie's character seemed like very much of a deja vue to me. It didn't take me long to notice the similarities he shares with the character Lester Burnham played by Kevin Spacey in the movie "American Beauty". Burnham is a depressed father in a mid-life crisis who decides to turn his life around after developing an infatuation for his daughter's attractive friend. Both characters share this disturbing quality: their interest in relatively young schoolgirls.