The Writer, the Critic, and the Censor: J. M.

Coetzee and the Question of Literature Seen against the background of the vast scholarl and !ole"ical literature on censorshi!, J. M. Coetzee#s Giving Offense $%&&'( stands out as an avo)edl singular intervention. *s Coetzee hi"self !oints out in the !reface, the t)elve essa s that "ake u! the volu"e, "ost of )hich originall a!!eared bet)een %&++ and %&&,, constitute neither a -histor # nor a -strong theor # of censorshi! $%&&' vii(. .ather the re!resent an atte"!t, first, -to understand a !assion )ith )hich / have no intuitive s "!ath , the !assion that !la s itself out in acts of silencing and censoring#0 and, second, -to understand, historicall and sociologicall , )h it is that / have no s "!ath )ith that !assion# $vii(. These !refator re"arks !re!are the )a autobiogra!hical. The for a )ide1ranging interdisci!linar stud , )hich is at once !s choanal tic, literar , historical, sociological and also "ake !lain the anti1rationalist s!irit of Coetzee#s en2uir , )hich centres not so "uch on legislative histor or the !ractice of censorshi! as on the !assions revealed and concealed in )ritings for or against it. 3ne of the "ost i"!ortant essa s -4"erging fro" Censorshi!# $%&&,( seeks, for instance, to understand the curiousl -contagious !o)er# of the censor#s -!aranoia# $%&&' ,5(. Wh is it, Coetzee asks, that )riters6and here he included hi"self6so often -record the feeling of being touched and conta"inated b the sickness of the state# $,7(8 The anti1rationalist s!irit of this 2uestion is as evident in the essa s on s!ecific censors and dissident )riters as it is in so"e of Coetzee#s o)n general argu"ents against censorshi!. -Censorshi! is not an

= occu!ation that attracts intelligent, subtle "inds# $viii(, he notes at one !oint, before adding it -!uts !o)er in the hands of !ersons )ith a 9udge"ental, bureaucratic cast of "ind that is bad for the cultural and even the s!iritual life of the co""unit # $%&&' %:(. Characteristicall , given the focus of his en2uir , he bases his ob9ection not on "atters of !rinci!le but on 9udge"ents about the censors# 2ualit of "ind and the !ernicious !ublic effects of their authorit . * si"ilar logic underlies his anal sis of the censors# "ore i""ediate i"!act on )riters. What concerned hi" "ost in this case )as the !s chological da"age censorshi! inflicted irres!ective of )hether or not a )riter#s )orks )ere banned, an effect he felt he could re!resent onl !recarious series of gendered and highl in an arrestingl se;ualised figures. /n ideal

conditions, the -inner dra"a# of )riting could, he suggested, be construed as a transaction bet)een the )riter and the -figure of the beloved#, the internalised reader )ho" the )riter -tries to !lease# but, as i"!ortantl , -surre!titiousl to revise and recreate# as -the1one1)ho1)ill1be1!leased# $,+(. -/"agine )hat )ill ha!!en#, he then asked, -if into this transaction is introduced in a "assive and undeniable )a the dark1suited, bald1 headed censor, )ith his !ursed li!s and his red !en and his irritabilit and his censoriousness6the censor, in fact, as a !arodic version of the figure1 of1the1father# $,+(. The logical conse2uence of this consciousl <reudian chain of figures )as inevitable. Working under censorshi! is like being inti"ate )ith so"eone )ho does not love ou, )ith )ho" ou )ant no inti"ac , but )ho !resses hi"self in u!on ou. The censor is an intrusive reader, a reader )ho forces his )a into the inti"ac of the )riting transaction, forces out the figure of the loved or courted reader, reads our )ords in a disa!!roving and censorious fashion $,+(.

, 3nce again Coetzee conducts the argu"ent not in ter"s of !rinci!le6he "akes no a!!eal, sa , to the language of rights6but through a -s!eculative# anal sis of the censor#s !assion and the effects of his -contagious !o)er# $,5(. >e also argues fro" !ersonal testi"on . Though never banned, he did have the "isfortune to begin his !ublishing career in the %&5:s, one of the )orst decades in the histor of censorshi! under a!artheid, and so his striking i"age of the censor as an un)elco"e, -intrusive reader# is all the "ore disconcerting because it co"es, as he notes, !artl fro" intros!ection $,5(. ?et he did not intend this to be "erel an autobiogra!hical e;ercise. >is !ur!ose )as to anal se the discourse he shared )ith other )riters affected b censorshi!, )hether in South *frica or else)here, and to situate it historicall . >is i"age of the censor as a !atriarchal "onster or censorious bureaucrat )as, he recognised, not !articularl uni2ue or ne), nor )as it untouched b the !aranoia he detected in the censors the"selves. /t )as !art of his 4uro!ean cultural inheritance, reflecting his continuit )ith a tradition of increasingl -settled and institutional# hostilit bet)een artists and -govern"ental authorit #, )hich he dated fro" the late eighteenth centur $&(. *rtists, he noted, have over the !ast t)o centuries assu"ed it as -their social role, and so"eti"es indeed as their vocation and destin , to test the li"its $that is to sa , the )eak !oints( of thought and feeling, of re!resentation, of the la), and of o!!osition itself, in )a s that those in !o)er )ere bound to find unco"fortable and even offensive# $&(. Though Coetzee hi"self is acutel sensitive to the !otential !itfalls of this heroic authorial self1 construction6he anal ses this !o)erfull in essa s on Solzhenits n and *ndre @rink $%&&' %%51A'0 =:A1%A(6he is e2uall a)are of the e;tent to )hich the countervailing idea of the censor as adversar has sha!ed the institution of literature in "odernit . The censor, as hateful guardian of

A the La), is an o!!onent the transgressive "odern )riter has so"eho) needed. Just ho) these night"arish censor1figures, )ho have for so long haunted )estern literar culture, relate to the all too hu"an censors of histor , !articularl in the case of a!artheid South *frica, is not al)a s eas to !redict. /ndeed, )hat "akes the once secret histor of Coetzee#s o)n fate at the hands of the a!artheid censors so challenging and significant is the une;!ected gulf the archives reveal bet)een the realit of his felt e;!erience under censorshi!6)hich )as, of course, not 9ust his6and the official res!onse to his )ork. Though there )ere "an censors in the s ste" )ith a -9udge"ental, bureaucratic cast of "ind#, and no doubt "an )ho could be cast as dramatis personae in Coetzee#s version of the )riter#s -inner dra"a#, those )ho read and re!orted on his o)n novels see" disturbingl "iscast for their role. In the Heart of the Country $%&55( and Life & Times of Michael K $%&+,( )ere, as / re!orted in a article in the TLS in Ma =:::, read and !assed b an unusuall so!histicated grou!, a!!ointed in !art for their literar e;!ertise: *nna Lou), a res!ected *frikaans )o"en )riter0 >. van der Mer)e Scholtz, a "inor !oet and !rofessor of *frikaans literature0 <. C. <ensha", a !rofessor of languages0 and .ita Scholtz, an educated -ordinar # reader )ith s!ecial literar interests. Their re!orts echo the !raise Coetzee received fro" "an of his earliest critical cha"!ions, and at ti"es even read like fairl interesting literar criticis". *nna Lou), in fact, ver 2uickl re)orked her *frikaans censorshi! re!ort on In the Heart of the Country into t)o local ne)s!a!er revie)s, !raising it as her book of the ear for %&55, and a decade later she !ublished a "ore elaborate 4nglish version in the @ritish scholarl 9ournal ! "evie#, )here she res!onded enthusiasticall to the novel as an allegor of a Calvinist consciousness $ ! "evie# 7:1=(.

7 * re!ort on a third novel $aiting for the %ar&arians $%&+:(, )hich has onl recentl co"e to light, confir"s this une;!ected !attern. /n this instance, the censor and chair of the relevant reading co""ittee )as .eginald Lighton, an elderl $he )as born in %&:,(, retired !rofessor of 4ducation at the Bniversit censorshi! establish"ent b of Ca!e To)n. % * for"er teacher and %&+:. >e had served on the earl ins!ector of schools, Lighton )as, like Mer)e Scholtz, fir"l !art of the Cublications Control @oard as a "e"ber and then vice1chair"an fro" %&5:, and )hen the ne) censorshi! s ste" )as set u! in %&57 he )as an assistant then de!ut director of the ne) Directorate of Cublications. >e )as also so"ething of a literar "an. * "inor novelist, a children#s )riter, and a literar anthologist, his "odest success )as not har"ed b the fact that he )as also a school ins!ector. >is one novel Out of the Strong' ( %ushveld Story $%&75(, an u!lifting "oral tale for teenage bo s, )ent through t)o editions and four re1!rintings, no doubt !artl because it )as, like his antholog Stories South (frican, !rescribed for )hite secondar schools. Lighton did, it see"s, have a bureaucratic cast of "ind6he served on endless councils and co""ittees, and clearl en9o ed being an ad"inistrator6but, if his re!ort on $aiting for the %ar&arians is an thing to go b , he )as not es!eciall 9udge"ental or censorious. Like the others )ho read Coetzee#s )ork, he )as also not disa!!roving. $aiting for the %ar&arians, like the other t)o novels, reached the censors via custo"s in Ca!e To)n )ho interce!ted the first consign"ent of the Secker and Warburg hardback edition and sub"itted a co! to the Directorate on =7 Eove"ber %&+:. <ollo)ing the usual !ractice, the co! )as then !assed on to the !rinci!al reader, in this case Lighton. Dated 5 Dece"ber, and )ritten in 4nglish, his re!ort began )ith the re2uired brief s no!sis of the stor , )hich he introduced )ith a series of

' 2uotations fro" the confrontational blurb that Coetzee had either )ritten or authorised. -<or decades $an( old Magistrate had FsicG run the affairs of a tin frontier settle"ent, FHG occu! ing hi"self in !hilandering I anti2uarianis", ignoring the confluence of forces FHG leading to )ar bet)een the barbarians $frontier no"ads( I the 4"!ire he serves FsicG.# The Magistrate#s situation -is that of all "en living in unbearable co"!licit )ith regi"es )hich elevate their o)n survival above 9ustice I decenc .# >aving set this out, Lighton i""ediatel noted: -The localit is obscure0 so"e oasis in an arid region north of the e2uator, )here )inters are ic .# What he )anted to stress )as that -it is no)here near Southern *frica, nor is their an )hite !o!ulace# and that -there are no a!!arent !arallels#, though he added -so"e s "bols "a be found#. The rest of his su""ar co"!rised a sketch account of the !lot and a short character anal sis of the Magistrate )ho" he described as -a co"!assionate, sincere "an, a loner )ho has gone Jse"i1nativeK, to the e;tent that he antagonises the !olice I "ilitar authorities6for he reveals so"e s "!ath )ith the barbarians.# /t )as, in his vie), a -so"bre, tragic book#, )hich ended -)ith the blood but al)a s unbo)ed Magistrate heading the dis!irited re"nants of the !o!ulace J)aiting for the barbarians.K# Eo doubt the ironies of his use of the "uch1cited !hrase fro" -/nvictus#, W. 4. >enle #s bo"bastic late1Lictorian !oe" about "anl herois" in the face of death, )ere not intended6his e;!erience as a )riter of stories for bo s see"s to have coloured his inter!retation of the ending. The !assages Lighton thought -"a !ossibl be regarded as undesira&le) al"ost all fell under Section A5$=($a( of the %&5A Cublications *ct, )hich dealt )ith )hat "ight be -indecent or obscene or offensive or har"ful to !ublic "orals#. Most centred on the Magistrate#s

5 various real or i"agined se;ualised encounters )ith the oung barbarian girl $!!. ,:, A:, AA, 77, ',, '', %A&(, a to)n girl $!!. A=( and an older )o"an $!!. %7%(, but he also highlighted the scene in )hich the Magistrate vo euristicall )itnesses se; bet)een the to)n girl and a oung bo $!. &5(. Though he underlined those !ages containing scenes of full intercourse $!!. ', and &5(, he re"arked that all these -se; incidents# )ere -generall vague, i"!licit#. Bnder clause $a(, he also noted scenes of -brutalit #, es!eciall Colonel Joll#s !ublic flogging of the ca!tured barbarians $!!. %:,1+( and Warrant 3fficer Mandel#s torturing and "ock hanging of the Magistrate $!!. %%71%', %%&1=%(. <or the rest, he si"!l counted u! the )ords -fuck# $-+ ti"es#( and -shit# $-' ti"es#(6he found the soldier#s abusive language on !. %,+ es!eciall note)orth . The onl !assage he felt "ight be undesirable in other )a s )as the scene in )hich Mandel first reads the charges, ranging fro" inco"!etence to treason, against the Magistrate $!. +A(. <ro" the !age nu"ber, it is "ost likel that he )as concerned about the Magistrate#s co""ents on the @ureau#s c nical abuse of due !rocess. The )ill use the la) against "e as far as it serves the", then the )ill turn to other "ethods. That is the @ureau#s )a . To !eo!le )ho do not o!erate under statute, legal !rocess is si"!l one instru"ent a"ong "an . Lighton "a also have been )orried about his subse2uent anal sis of Mandel#s character, ho)ever. The Magistrate goes on to describe Mandel as one of those -"en )ho "ight as easil go into lives of cri"e as into the service of the 4"!ire $but )hat better branch of service could the choose than the @ureauM(.# /n Lighton#s vie), these co""ents "ight be dee"ed -!re9udicial to the safet of the State, the general )elfare or the !eace and good order# $A5$=($e((.

+ ?et, des!ite these !otential difficulties, he )as in no doubt that the novel )as -not undesirable#. >is reasoning, )hich, in effect, beca"e the co""ittee#s reco""endation, is )orth citing in full. This is a so"e)hat Nafkaes2ue t !e of narrative, )ith the narrator an elderl so"e)hat Qui;otic Magistrate, for long !osted at a little frontier out!ost, )ho has sought a "odus vivendi if not o!erandi )ith the no"adic tribes $the barbarians(. @ut the officiousl overbearing /"!erial !olice I "ilitar find in hi" an i"!edi"ent to their !lan to e;tend /"!erial s)a to subduing the barbarians. So there is tension bet)een the a"bitious authoritarians and the indulgent "agistrate. >e loses !osition I authorit , I suffers severe battering. Doo", brutalit and suffering suffuse this so"bre book unrelieved b an lighter touches. The fe) across the line se; incidents are al"ost entirel ine;!licit I in no case lust1 !rovoking. The locale is as obscure as 4re)hon, and an s "bolis" "ore so6a!art fro" the arrogant t rann of State FsicG senior ideologists6their blinkered ideological outlook I ruthlessness. F(dded as an afterthought: <urther s "bolis" could )ith diligence be e;tracted. *ll is of )orld1)ide significance, not !articularized.G Though the book has considerable literar "erit, it 2uite lacks !o!ular a!!eal. The likel readershi! )ill be li"ited largel to the intelligentsia, the discri"inating "inorit . There are less than a dozen Fsic8G -offensive# )ords, and all are co""on!lace I functionall in conte;t. We F-/# crossed outG sub"it there is no convincing reason for declaring the book undesirable. The other co""ittee "e"bers, including .ita Scholtz )ho )ould go on to chair the co""ittee on Michael K, and <. C. Oonin )ho had !assed In the Heart of the Country , si"!l endorsed this conclusion, )hich the Directorate subse2uentl agreed not to a!!eal.

& Eo) that re!orts 9ustif ing the release of all three novels have been unearthed6*us+lands $%&5A( and ,oe $%&+'( )ere not scrutinised 6it is !ossible to "ake so"e general re"arks about the official res!onse to Coetzee#s )ork. To begin )ith it is clear that all the censors recognised that his novels tested the li"its of the %&5A *ct, es!eciall on "atters of !ublic "orals and state securit . The included se;uall frank e!isodes, scenes of torture and brutalit , and the indirectl )ere directl or critical of the a!artheid state or its agents. Their !olitical

subversiveness )as es!eciall evident in Michael K, but, as <ensha" noted, In the Heart of the Country also dis!la ed -traces of !rotest literature#, and Lighton recognised that the agents of the @ureau and the 4"!ire, for all their lack of s!ecificit as -s "bols#, had so"e local resonances $TLS %7(. >is co""ents on torture, Joll and Mandel are !articularl note)orth , given Coetzee#s subse2uent reflection on %ar&arians, the torture cha"ber, and the ethics of )riting. %ar&arians )as, Coetzee noted in -/nto the Dark Cha"ber# $%&+'(, -about the i"!act of the torture cha"ber on the life of a "an of conscience#, a sub9ect that "ade it !otentiall co"!licit )ith the a!artheid regi"e, since there )as -so"ething ta)dr about follo#ing the stateH"aking its vile " steries the occasion of fantas # $*ou&ling %&&= ,',1'A(. >e )ould later develo! this line of argu"ent "ore full , not least in his challenging criti2ue of @rink $Offense %&&' =:A1%A(. ?et co"!licit )as onl one side of the -dile""a !ro!osed b the state#. /gnoring as o!!osed to e;!osing its -obscenities# )as e2uall unacce!table $%&&= ,'A(. -ither self1censorshi! or co"!licit 6such )as the gri" alternative )riting under the censor#s intrusive gaze see"ed to i"!ose. <or all his candour about the -contagious !o)er# of this gaze, Coetzee none the less felt the )riter#s -true challenge# )as -ho) not to !la the ga"e b the rules of the state, ho) to establish one#s o)n authorit , ho) to i"agine torture and death

%: on one#s o)n ter"s# $,'A(. /n the absence of the detailed infor"ation contained in the censors# re!orts it )as not !ossible6though it )as of course for so"e al)a s te"!ting6to 9udge to )hat e;tent Coetzee "anaged to rise to his o)n challenge. /t is )orth recalling that )hile the censors# decision not to ban an of the three novels the scrutinized )as a "atter of !ublic kno)ledge at the ti"e6the fact that the books )ere e"bargoed and then released )as noted in the !ress6it )as not kno)n )hich censors acted in his case or ho) the 9ustified their reco""endations. 3n the basis of this ne) evidence, )e can no) "ake a "ore infor"ed retros!ective assess"ent of the censors# res!onse to Coetzee#s o)n struggle to avoid the state#s dile""a. Bne;!ectedl this turns on their o!enness to, and idea of, the literar , since, for all the readers, the co""ittees, and ulti"atel novels# potential undesirabilit for the Directorate itself, his their "anifest )as "itigated b

literariness. The )ere not banned because the )ere sufficiently literar . This of course begs a nu"ber of large 2uestions, not least because it "eant various things. The novels )ere literar firstl in the sense that the had, as Lighton !ut it, no -!o!ular a!!eal#. Their readershi! )as restricted to the -intelligentsia, the discri"inating "inorit .# This 2uasi1 sociological conce!tion of the literar did not si"!l "ean that the novels )ere !assable because their i"!act in South *frica )as e;!ected to be slight. /t also assu"ed that undesirabilit )as relative. Eo content )as inherentl or absolutel undesirable, since its !o)er to offend or threaten de!ended on the nu"ber and kind of readers it )as likel to reach andPor on the )a in )hich those !utative readers )ere likel to res!ond to it. To this e;tent, the censors# conce!tion of the literar de!ended in !art on their construction of the -literar reader#. *s .ita Scholtz clai"ed in her re!ort on Michael K, its -so!histicated I discri"inating# readershi! )ould -e;!erience the novel as a )ork of art#

%% $TLS %7(. This conviction )as inse!arable fro" the censors# second, "ore aesthetic understanding of literariness. The novels )ere also literar , and likel to be read as literature, the argued, because of their for"al and rhetorical co"!le;it , subtlet , or obscurit . This )as !articularl i"!ortant in relation to !ublic "orals. The novels# aesthetic 2ualities functioned as a kind of !rotective covering rendering an !otentiall undesirable se;ual or violent content innocuous. *nna Lou), for instance, felt that the disturbed first1!erson narrative "ode of In the Heart of the Country "ade tolerable the ra!e scenes -that "ight, in a different conte.t, be 2uestioned as undesirable# $TLS %7, italics "ine(. This idea of literature as a !rivileged aesthetic s!ace, set a!art fro" "ore ordinar for"s of discourse, including less literar novels, )as not 9ust based on assu"!tions about for", ho)ever. *s!ects of the novels# content, in !articular their te"!oral and s!atial settings, )ere also i"!ortant, not least in relation to their !otential subversiveness. The did not !ose a threat to the a!artheid state, the censors argued, since, as literature, their settings )ere either universal or not si"!l , essentiall , or directl reflective of the contemporary South *frican situation. 3n this issue their 9udge"ents )ere not al)a s !redictable. /n the case of $aiting for the %ar&arians, Coetzee#s "ost anti1realist novel, )ith its )holl invented geogra!h and non1s!ecific !lacing in a colonial !ast, it is hardl sur!rising that Lighton e"!hasised its redee"ing universalit . Though it could be argued that the novel resists this kind of reading6for one thing, South *frica is covered b Lighton#s ter" -)orld1)ide#6it is of all Coetzee#s fictions the one "ost a"enable to those co""itted to the belief in great art#s universalit . $4lse)here / have argued that his novels resist nation1centred readings and the e2uall reductive !ieties of the !articular $Interventions ,=%1,:(.( /t is also, for the sa"e reasons, the novel that leaves Coetzee "ost vulnerable to the charge of self1

%= censorshi!, not, as he thought, co"!licit . ?et on this issue he clearl could not )in. The dog"a of universalit )as si"!l too entrenched in the censor#s thinking. <or .ita Scholtz Michael K)s universalit 6she !rivileged a reading of it as an allegor of the alienated hu"an condition in the late t)entieth centur 6enabled it to rise above the concretel realised setting and the e;!licitl -derogator # co""ents on the state6 she did not "ention that the novel is set in the future $ TLS %7(. Like Lighton, she used the a!!eal to universalit to do)n!la , if not erase, )hat she took to be its relativel direct relevance to conte"!orar South *frica. Though *nna Lou) echoed this )ishful universalising tendenc in her individual co""ents on In the Heart of the Country , the co""ittee, in their general re!ort on that novel, took a different a!!roach to its narrative dis!lace"ents. The argued that its !ortra al of inter1 racial se; )as -!erfectl acce!table# because the stor )as set so"eti"e in South *frica#s colonial !ast $TLS %7(. /n each case, then, the novels# )ere !assed not onl because the )ere not !o!ular, or because their aesthetic 2ualities rendered the" har"less, but because their real or i"agined s!atio1te"!oral dis!lace"ents6into South *frica#s !ast or future, into a universal conte"!orar situation, or into the real" of !ure i"agination6de1e"!hasized or over)hel"ed their relevance to conte"!orar South *frica. *ll these factors ensured that des!ite their !otential undesirabilit the could be officiall a!!roved because the )ere not going to cause offence or threaten the state. The )ere too literary to )arrant banning, or, to be "ore !recise, the )ere, in the censors# vie), too readil a"enable to their idea of the literar and )a s of reading to be !roscribed. That the a!artheid state !ut a grou! of censors so co""itted to defending the literar in such a !o)erful !osition is startling enough. Things beco"e "ore disconcerting, ho)ever, if )e set these censors#

%, relativel uncensorious 9udge"ents in the conte;t of the critical rece!tion of Coetzee#s )ork in the late %&5:s and %&+:s. This is !artl because so"e critics did not fit the censors# construction of the -literar reader#. /ndeed, )hile the censors secretl 9udged Coetzee#s novels acce!table because the )ere too literar so"e leading critics, !articularl in South *frica but also else)here, o!enl considered the" ob9ectionable on the sa"e grounds. /f )e take Coetzee#s o)n "uch1cited essa -The Eovel Toda #, )hich he originall delivered as a talk in Ca!e To)n in Eove"ber %&+5, as a testa"ent to the )a in )hich he felt critics )ere res!onding to his )ork at that ti"e, then the challenges !osed b the censors# a!!roval beco"e all the "ore acute. 3n that occasion, and to that local audience, )hich he assu"ed )as hostile, Coetzee !ortra ed hi"self as -"e"ber of a tribe threatened )ith colonisation#, his !rovocative figure for the novelist )hose o)n s!ecificall discourse )as in danger of being a!!ro!riated b literar the discourses of

!olitics, ethics, and, "ost notabl , histor $/pstream ,(.= The "ain !oint of his talk )as, as he !ut it, to o!!ose the -!o)erful tendenc , !erha!s even do"inant tendenc , to subsu"e the novel under histor #, )here histor )as taken to be a fi;ed, self1evident realit to )hich the novel )as su!!osed to bear )itness $=(. >e also )anted to correct the "is!erce!tion that novels, like his o)n, that )ere not -investigations of real historical forces# )ere so"eho) -lacking in seriousness# $=(. This negative assess"ent, according to )hich his novels )ere at best irrelevant or at )orst ini"ical to the struggle against a!artheid, )as of course onl strengthened b the fact that the )ere never banned. *ccording to the do"inant vie), onl those novels that in a realist "ode !ut their literariness in the service of ethics, !olitics, and histor deserved to be valued and taken seriousl in the !ressing circu"stances of South *frica in the %&+:s. This concerned Coetzee not 9ust because it

%A devalued his o)n )ork, but because it assu"ed that literar discourse has no !ublic value or authorit per se. This assu"!tion could be articulated in t)o )a s. Where !ro!onents of the -do"inant tendenc # recognised literariness, the did so because it "ade !ossible es!eciall effective )a s of 9udging or bearing )itness to histor $e.g. -fro" the inside#, as Ste!hen Cling"an#s Lukacsian stud of Oordi"er had it(. This )eaker for"ulation, )hich )as the focus of Coetzee#s criti2ue, granted the literar so"e, albeit onl instru"ental, value. *ccording to the stronger for"ulation, )hich Coetzee ackno)ledged onl i"!licitl , the value of the literar )as at best negligible, at )orst nugator . 3n this vie), the literariness of a novel is irrelevant, or relevant onl negativel as obfuscation, since its value is )holl de!endent on its status as a social docu"ent dealing )ith issues of race, class and gender. This vie) is i"!lied in Coetzee#s sardonic co""ent that There is a ga"e going on bet)een the covers of the book, but it is not al)a s the ga"e ou think it is. Eo "atter )hat it "a a!!ear to be doing, the stor is not reall !la ing the ga"e ou call Class Conflict or the ga"e called Male Do"ination or an of the other ga"es in the ga"es handbook $,1A(. >is ans)er to both the stronger and the )eaker for"s of instru"entalized reading )as e"!hatic. Eot content si"!l to defend his o)n novelistic !ractice, he insisted on literature as a s!ecific kind of discourse, distinct fro" the discourses of histor , !olitics and ethics0 or, as he !ut it, -stor telling as another, an other "ode of thinking# $A(. This a!!eal to distinctiveness did not si"!l "ean that, contrar to the )eaker version of the -do"inant tendenc #, literature )as an autono"ous, rather than su!!le"entar , discourse, since, for Coetzee, distinctiveness also entailed rivalr . *gainst the stronger version of the do"inant vie), the version that sought to efface literariness altogether, he insisted that the literar

%7 e;isted in a rivalrous relationshi! to the discourses of !olitics, ethics and histor . .ead as literature, in other )ords, his novels could be seen not si"!l to dis!lace but to contest the authorit of the historical categories 6including race, class and gender6!ervading, and often defor"ing, the )ider !ublic discourses in and about a!artheid South *frica. This further "ove )as not )ithout risk, a !oint / shall develo! later. Coetzee#s for"alist a!!eal to the literar as a discourse )ith its o)n distinct, or, "ore strongl , rivalrous, "ode of e;istence looks like a version of the censors# !rivileged aesthetic s!ace, an affinit that )ould, of course, invite further sus!icions of self1censorshi! and co"!ound the historical ironies. <ar fro" being !atriarchal "onsters deter"ined to usur! the !osition of the beloved reader, it see"s the une;!ectedl literar censors, not the !oliticised critics, )ere Coetzee#s closest allies in the %&+:s. <or *nna Lou) this )as not sur!rising. Coetzee, she felt, )as on her side. /n her ! "evie# article, she eagerl noted so"e reservations he had e;!ressed about -!oliticall co""itted literature# in an intervie) of %&5+, before adding that such )riting had, in her vie), -reached a fever !itch in both 4nglish and *frikaans literar circles# in South *frica $7:(., ?et the dra"a of this ne;t une;!ected turn6it is not difficult to i"agine the headlines: -Oreat Writer Loved b "ore !rofound theoretical and ulti"atel Censors, >ated b Critics#6conceals a "ore testing set of reversals, )hich reflect cultural an;ieties about the literar . /n the febrile !olitical conte;t of South *frica in the %&+:s, Coetzee#s novels did not 9ust fall victi" to the censorious critics or, "ore da"ningl , to the censors# a!!roval. This )as !artl because the censors )ere not state functionaries )ho si"!l a!!lied the la) "echanicall . /t )as also !artl because the critics did not see the"selves onl as evaluators and inter!reters of Coetzee#s novels. The situation )as "ade "ore challenging, and )orse still for Coetzee, because both the censors

%' and the critics took on the additional task of !olicing the categor of the literar , of deciding )hat constituted literature, or "ore narro)l , )hat could count as serious literature, )hich the of course defined in o!!osite )a s. Their o!!osing definitions can briefl be su""ed u! if )e follo) the cogent for"ula Stanle <ish !ro!osed in a "a9or theoretical essa of %&5, $revised in %&+:(.A To su""arize t)o do"inant attitudes to the literar in )estern thinking, both of )hich relied on a !urel linguistic anal sis of the difference bet)een literar language and a su!!osedl nor"ative ordinar language, <ish outlined )hat he ter"ed -"essage1 !lus# and -"essage1"inus# a!!roaches to the 2uestion. -* "essage1 "inus definition#, as he !ut it, -is one in )hich the se!aration of literature fro" the nor"ative center of ordinar language is celebrated0 )hile in a "essage1!lus definition, literature is reunited )ith the center b declaring it to be a "ore effective conve or of the "essages ordinar language trans"its# $%&+: %:,(. 3ne of the chief difficulties )ith these traditional for"ulations, <ish then !ointed out, is that, )hile !ur!orting to be universal in sco!e, and to define literature once and for all in !urel linguistic ter"s, each entailed a set of s!ecific, and )holl o!!osed, aesthetic valuations. Message1"inus theorists are forced to den literar status to )orks )hose function is in !art to conve infor"ation or offer !ro!ositions about the real )orldH.Message1!lus theorists, on the other hand, are co""itted to do)ngrading )orks in )hich ele"ents of st le do not either reflect or su!!ort a !ro!ositional core $%:A(. The relevance of this see"ingl abstruse theoretical !roble" to the "urk circu"stances of Coetzee#s rece!tion in the %&+:s is not difficult to see. The censors, )ho )ere adherents of the -"essage1"inus#

%5 definition, !assed Coetzee#s novels because the )ere sufficientl

literar on their ter"s. *s literature the )ere far enough re"oved fro" "ore ordinar discourses, including less literar novels, that )ould, )ith the sa"e content, be offensive or subversive. @ contrast, the critics, )ho at best follo)ed the -"essage1!lus# vie), do)ngraded Coetzee#s novels because the )ere too literar according to their definition. The lacked seriousness because the did not engage effectivel $i.e. realisticall ( enough )ith the struggle against a!artheid. <ish#s essa is )orth invoking in this conte;t not onl because it clarifies the stakes involved in this strange, !reviousl invisible contest bet)een the censors and the critics in a usefull concise )a . /t is also es!eciall !ertinent because it influenced Coetzee#s o)n thinking about the categor of the literar , as evidenced in his %&+5 talk. *t one !oint, for instance, he u!dated <ish#s arith"etic6all the !lusses and "inuses6 bringing it into the age of the deskto! co"!uter. There is no addition in stories. The are not "ade u! of one thing !lus another thing, "essage !lus vehicle, substructure !lus su!erstructure. 3n the ke board on )hich the are )ritten, the !lus ke does not )ork. There is al)a s a difference0 and the difference is not a !art, the !art left behind after the subtraction. The "inus ke does not )ork either: the difference is ever thing $/pstream A(. This e;!licitl allusive !assage, one of "an in the talk as a )hole, casts a different light on Coetzee#s defence of the distinctiveness of the literar , and on his relationshi! to the censors. Though his talk )as 2uite clearl a defence of literature#s autono" , it )as not in an )a an endorse"ent of the censors# "orall co"!ro"ised faith in subtraction, )here the literar beco"es an aesthetic covering that sets great novels a!art and renders the" innocuous. Eor did it offer an backing for his

%+ critics# "orall laudable faith in addition, )here the literar beco"es an effective su!!le"ent to "ore ordinar discursive "odes. /n his vie), literar discourse )as neither "ore nor less than the discourses of !olitics, ethics and histor . /t )as 9ust different6though, as / have inti"ated, his further insistence on its status as a rival discourse goes be ond "ere difference, !roble"aticall re1inscribing the literar in a broader cultural struggle for !o)er and !rivilege. To the e;tent that Coetzee insisted on difference he )as as far fro" the censors as he )as fro" his "ore adversarial critics, )ho )ere, at least at the level of theor , rather "ore like each other than the )ould have liked to ackno)ledge. <or one thing, both assu"ed that -for"# and -content# are in !rinci!le se!arable0 and, for another, both !resu!!osed that the literar could be defined onl relative to a !utativel fi;ed nor" of a "essage1bearing ordinar discourse. These )ere t)o assu"!tions Coetzee#s a!!eal to difference is ever thing#6)as intended to distinctiveness6-the

re!udiate. *s he argued in -The Eovel Toda #, )ith reference to the critics, and a ear earlier in -/nto the Dark Cha"ber#, )ith the censors in "ind, literature#s authorit , and his clai" to seriousness as a novelist, la in its irreducible !o)er to intervene in the !ublic s!here on its o)n ter"s, since its effectiveness, including its !olitical effectiveness, and its literariness )ere inse!arable. The trouble )as, des!ite Coetzee#s efforts, surre!titious or other)ise, to court a beloved ideal reader, fe) actual readers a!!eared )illing or able to recognise, let alone endorse, this idea of the literar in the %&5:s and %&+:s. To Coetzee it looked at that ti"e as if his !articular literar !ro9ect )as i"!erilled b t)o ver different and es!eciall intrusive kinds of reader: the 9udge"ental, )holl unliterar censor, on the one hand0 and the a!!ro!riative, !oliticised literar critic, on the other. ?et, as / have tried to sho), the situation )as "ade all the "ore testing because the

%& actual censors )ho read his novels behind the scenes )ere not 2uite the o!!onents the see"ed. Eo) that their detailed re!orts have e"erged fro" the shado)s it is !ossible to offer a ne) retros!ective reading of the situation, )hich links the censors and the critics in une;!ected )a s and !uts the 2uestion of literature at the centre of things. 3n the basis of this ne) evidence, Coetzee could still be figured as the e"battled "e"ber of a "arginal tribe threatened )ith colonisation b t)o o!!osing but e2uall intrusive forces6censorshi! and literar criticis"6though )e )ould no) have to ackno)ledge that both )ere directed to)ards a co""on goal: "isrecognising the distinctiveness of his novels b assi"ilating the" into their contradictor conce!tions of the literar . 3n this anal sis, it could be argued that Coetzee e"erges as a hero of the "argins, as, sa , a Nafkaes2ue hunger artist )orking in the tradition of a "inor literature, al)a s against the odds. This is still a !o!ular i"age of Coetzee1as1 novelist, one that he, of course, !artl authorised in his !ole"ical %&+5 talk, !articularl )hen he shifted the focus of his argu"ent fro" difference to rivalr . ?et cha"!ioning hi" in this )a onl co"!licates "atters further, in " vie). <or one thing, the "ove fro" difference to rivalr had the unha!! effect of i"!licating Coetzee in a long and troubled 4uro!ean tradition of -"etacultural discourse#, as <rancis Mulhern has usefull ter"ed it, according to )hich the literar re!resents not onl a distinct but also a uni2uel !rivileged discursive "ode, !articularl )hen set alongside the !olitical. -What s!eaks in "etacultural discourse is the cultural !rinci!le itself,# Mulhern notes, -as it strives to dissolve the !olitical as locus of general arbitration in social relations# $Mulhern =::=, +'(.7 /n the heat of the "o"ent, Coetzee#s clai"s about rivalr threatened to under"ine his !o)erful argu"ent about difference b overstating his case and b "irroring the e2uall e;aggerated distortions

=: of his "ost radical o!!onents: )here he tended to)ards a h !erinflation of the literar at the e;!ense of the !olitical, the did the o!!osite. ' Cha"!ioning Coetzee as a hero of the "argins can be li"iting in other )a s as )ell, es!eciall if it entails stabilising his !articular definition of the literar or turning it into et another universal. Doing so )ould si"!l re!eat the "istakes of the censors and critics and so risk ignoring the "ost significant lesson of <ish#s essa . *ll aestheticsHare local and conventional rather than universal, reflecting a collective decision as to )hat )ill count as literature, a decision that )ill be in force onl so long as a co""unit of readers or believers $it is ver "uch an act of faith( continues to abide b it $%:+(. /n this res!ect it is i"!ortant to re"e"ber that, for all his indebtedness to <ish in -The Eovel Toda #, Coetzee s!oke in %&+5 as a novelist, not as a literar theorist. >is ob9ect )as not, follo)ing <ish, to e;!ose the logical i"!ossibilit of ever establishing a stable, -ob9ective# definition of the literar on !urel linguistic grounds. /t )as to intervene in a collective debate about )hat counts as literature and to !ersuade a co""unit of readers to change their ideas. *s his o)n often h !erbolic language reveals6all that rhetoric of rivalr and colonisation6he )as defiantl defending his o)n heterodo; literar faith against "ore !o)erful $because "ore )idel shared(, but no "ore solidl founded, orthodo;ies. Though ai"ed at his "ore adversarial critics, this challenge could, as / have argued, e2uall have been directed at the a!!roving censors. /f this less enchanted anal sis does not e;actl rall to Coetzee#s cause, neither does it under"ine the value or !ersuasiveness of his case. 3n the contrar , it "akes it all the "ore co"!elling because it insists on the literar , not as a universall fi;ed or -natural# categor , nor as a !rivileged discourse above the fra , but as the site of constant cultural,

=% legal, !olitical and ethical struggle in )hich Coetzee, as novelist, is 9ust one, relativel !o)erless, figure a"ong "an . Eor does this !ers!ective !reclude an one fro" endorsing his !articular literar faith. Though his conce!tion of the literar as a rival to the discourses of histor and !olitics, in " vie), risks !ushing the i"!ortant argu"ent about !ossibilities, es!eciall difference too far and closes do)n too "an

considering the long tradition of satirical fiction, /, for one, )ould rather be a -Coetzeean# than an thing else )hen it co"es to literar "atters. Difficulties )ould arise onl if this co""it"ent )as seen as an thing other than a corroborating act of faith in our ti"e. This ad"ittedl rather dis!assionate stance )ould not onl have i"!ortant conse2uences for literar criticis", ho)ever. /t )ould also oblige us to o!en u! "ore effective lines of co""unication bet)een literar theor and cultural histor . /f the first stage in the argu"ent is to "ove against the censors and the critics b shifting the locus of literariness fro" the te;t to the reader, the second is to historicize the resultant -inter!retive co""unities# "ore radicall , as <ish al)a s insisted, and so "ake !ossible a -trul ne) literar histor # $%&+: &51 &+(.5 .elocating the 2uestion of literature in a larger and "ore richl realised socio1!olitical conte;t, enco"!assing nu"erous intersecting co""unities as )ell as censors, critics, )riters, !ublishers, teachers, and so1called -ordinar # readers, re2uires a !arallactic st le of cultural histor , )hich !rivileges no single !oint of vie). Written fro" neither the critic#s nor the )riter#s !ers!ective6the vantage !oints for "ost traditional literar !articularl histories6this kind of narrative )ould involve a totalising, account of co"!rehensive, if never i"!ossibl

ho) the over1deter"ined, often conflicting and al)a s volatile desires of various interest grou!s $-co""unities# !erha!s !resu!!oses too "uch( have sha!ed literar histor , or, "ore accuratel , sha!ed the categor of

== the literar in histor . Such an a!!roach )ould necessaril !a !articular attention to the fractious, and no) also )holl globalised, !ublic arena $-!ublic s!here# i"!lies an un)arranted degree of coherence( in )hich the so"eti"es costl effects of s!ecific definitions of the literar are )orked out and felt. /t is here that books are banned or a!!roved, )riters !raised or bla"ed, and see"ingl innocent "atters of taste linked to larger 2uestions of social and !olitical !o)er6all in the na"e of )hat -)e# $)ho e;actl 8( call literature. Moreover, it is in this arena that the a!!arentl abstract 2uestion of literature confronts an un!redictable )orld in )hich censors are not 9ust state functionaries serving o!!ressive regi"es but also "orall co"!ro"ised devotees of the literar , )here !rogressive critics can be self1a!!ointed literature !olice, )here )riters constantl risk "aking it ne), and )here ever one drea"s u! their o)n versions of the ideal -literar reader#. *bove all it is in this arena that the !arado;ical authorit of the literar , not as a !rivileged discourse above the la), histor , or !olitics but as the "ost fragile of categories, is revealed "ost acutel and !oignantl . Works Cited and Consulted *ttridge, Derek. %&++. *tt)ell, David. 01 M1 Coet2ee' South (frica and the olitics of $riting . Ca!e To)n: David Chili!, %&&,. Coetzee, J.M. Giving Offense' -ssays on Censorship . Chicago: Chicago Bniversit Cress, %&&'. 111111. *ou&ling the oint' -ssays and Intervie#s , ed. David *tt)ell. Ca"bridge, Mass.: >arvard Bniversit Cress, %&&=. eculiar Language' Literature as *ifference from the "enaissance to 0ames 0oyce. Ca"bridge: Ca"bridge Bniversit Cress,

=, 111111. -The Eovel Toda # /pstream $'.%( %&++: =17. See also Oa e Davis, -Coetzee and the cockroach )hich can#t be killed#, The $ee+ly Mail %,1%& Eove"ber %&+5: %&. 111111. -S!eaking: J. M. Coetzee# /ntervie) )ith Ste!hen Watson Spea+ $%.,( %&5+: =,1=A. Cling"an, Ste!hen. The !ovels of !adine Gordimer' History from the Inside. London: *llen I Bn)in, %&+'. <ish, Stanle . Is there a Te.t in This Class3 The (uthority of Interpretative Communities $>arvard Bniversit Cress, %&+:(, !!. &51 %%%. The essa ->o) 3rdinar is 3rdinar Language8# originall a!!eared in !e# Literary History $7.%( %&5,: A%17A. Lighton, .eginald. Censors# .e!ort on $aiting for the %ar&arians, Cublications Control @oard *rchive, reference C+:P%%P=:7, Eational *rchives of South *frica, Ca!e To)n. 111111. @iogra!hical !ro1for"a, Cublications Control @oard *rchive, reference /DC %P7P,, vol. %, Eational *rchives of South *frica, Ca!e To)n. 111111. Out of the Strong' ( %ushveld Story. London: Mac"illan, %&75. Cublications *ct of %&5A, Government Ga2ette, Eo. AA=', & 3ctober %&5A, !!. '%1'=. Lou), *nna M. -#n 3nvergeetlike indruk# F*n unforgettable i"!ressionG, rev. of In the Heart of the Country, *ie %urger = Dece"ber %&55: =. 1111111.--n < n gesl !te "etafoor# F* fine, !olished "eta!horG, rev. of In the Heart of the Country, %eeld =, Januar %&5+: %:. 1111111. -In the Heart of the Country : * Calvinist *llegor 8# ! "evie# $%A.=( %&+5: 7:17=. McDonald, Ceter D. -JEot BndesirableK: >o) J. M. Coetzee esca!ed the censor# TLS %& Ma =:::: %A1%7. 11111111. -*isgrace 4ffects# Interventions $A.,( =::=: ,=%1,:. Mulhern, <rancis. Culture4Metaculture $London: .outledge, =:::(.

=A 1111111. -@e ond Metaculture#, !e# Left "evie# $%'( Jul 1*ugust =::=: !!. +'1%:A. Sandars, Mark. .evie) of Giving Offense' -ssays on Censorship b J. M. Coetzee. %oston "evie# 3ctPEov %&&': AA1A7.

The biogra!hical details are all contained in the for"s each censor )as re2uired to fill in )hen a!!l ing to be a reader. Cublications Control @oard *rchive, reference /DC %P7P,, vol. %, Eational *rchives of South *frica, Ca!e To)n.
%

/t is also )orth noting that, des!ite a nu"ber of o!!ortunities, Coetzee has not !er"itted -The Eovel Toda # to be !ublished outside South *frica in a "ore accessible for". /t a!!eared in its entiret onl in /pstream, a s"all, local scholarl 9ournal. The $ee+ly Mail, a courageousl critical anti1a!artheid ne)s!a!er launched in %&+7, )hich organised the @ook Week at )hich Coetzee s!oke, also included an abridged version of it in the issue for %,1%& Eove"ber %&+5. The essa has, to this e;tent, re"ained a highl occasional !iece, charged )ith the heat of a ver !articular "o"ent, a !oint / ho!e " o)n reading of it res!ects. Coetzee#s target )as both general and s!ecific. *s his o)n for"ulation of the -colonising !rocess# suggests, he had in "ind a do"inant, Lukacsian st le of reading6anti1"odernist, broadl realist6!o!ular a"ong critics in South *frica at the ti"e to )hich, in Coetzee#s vie), The $ee+ly Mail )as es!eciall co""itted. /n the talk he noted that the occasion )as -arranged b an active and unasha"ed !ro!onent of this colonising !rocess# $,(. Though Coetzee, )ho )as alread an internationall acclai"ed @ooker !rize)inner, clearl felt the local !ressures "ost acutel , it should be noted that South *frican critics )ere not the onl ones sce!tical about his )ork at the ti"e. There is not enough s!ace here to give an e;tended anal sis of the histor of his critical rece!tion in the %&5:s and %&+:s, but the follo)ing !re1%&+5 !ieces give a !reli"inar idea of so"e of the "ore notable critical res!onses: for %ar&arians, see *bdul .. JanMoha"ed, -The 4cono" of Manichean *llegor : The <unction of .acial Difference in Colonialist Literature# Critical In5uiry $%=.%( %&+7: 5=15,0 and for Michael K see Eadine Oordi"er, -The /dea of Oardening# !e# 6or+ "evie# of %oo+s = <ebruar %&+A: ,, '0 and Q. E. -Much *do about Eobod # (frican Communist $&5( %&+A: %:%1,. *lso )orth "entioning in this regard are Ste!hen Cling"an#s The !ovels of !adine Gordimer' History from the Inside $%&+'(, )hich !raises Oordi"er for engaging directl and criticall )ith the historical realities of a!artheid South *frica0 and David *tt)ell#s 01 M1 Coet2ee' South (frica and the olitics of $riting $%&&,(, )hich "akes a !o)erful !ositive case for the refle;ive historicit of Coetzee#s fiction. / a" e;tre"el grateful to David *tt)ell for clarif ing Coetzee#s reference to the $ee+ly Mail in the talk.
=

Lou) )as inter!reting circu"s!ect co""ents Coetzee had "ade in an intervie) )ith Ste!hen Watson in Spea+ Ma PJune %&5+. She !robabl had in "ind his re"ark that he doubted -that the !olitical thinking of )riters is of an "ore interest or value than an one else#s#0 and !erha!s his subse2uent co""ents about so"e @lack South *frican )riters -)orking )ith "odels )hich / regard as ver dubious# $ Spea+ ==1=,(. /n the sa"e intervie), he also observed that the descri!tion of the -!olitical situation# as an -inhibiting factor# $Watson#s )ords( -could be belied at an "o"ent b the e"ergence of one or t)o @lack )riters )ho can achieve6/ kno) this is a dirt )ord no)ada s, but
,

let "e use it6that necessar distance fro" their i""ediate situation# $=,(. Lou)#s rather loaded article is, in "an )a s, a rare e;a"!le of a!artheid thinking in a reasonabl so!histicated literar 1critical conte;t. She took it as a;io"atic, for instance, that -indigenous black )riting# )as in its -infanc # $this in %&+5(, and focused her attention on )hite )riting and Coetzee#s -"i;ed 4nglish and *frikaans# background, !raising hi" as an -authentic South *frican voice# $7:(. /n her vie), this background set hi" above other 4nglish )riters, like the -co"!etent Eadine Oordi"er )ith her obsession )ith the urban *frican !olitical scene#0 and others, like *lan Caton, Jack Co!e and Ou @utler, )ho -often sound like the first generation Colonial )riting letters ho"e, so"eti"es over1ro"anticizing, at other ti"es co"!laining rather i"!otentl about the other )hite racial grou!, the *frikaners# $7:(. Though <ish "ade so"e slight changes to the essa )hen he re!ublished it in Is There a Te.t in This Class3 $%&+:(, he did not alter the !assages / cite. <or ease of reference / have ke ed all the 2uotations to the "ore )idel accessible %&+: version.
A

/n a !o)erful and !rovocative stud Mulhern identifies -"etacultural# tendencies both in the )ell1established 4uro!ean tradition of -Nulturkritik#, )hich he traces fro" Matthe) *rnold to *dorno through @enda and Leavis, a"ong others, and in the ounger, a!!arentl antagonistic, tradition of @ritish -cultural studies# fro" Willia"s to >all. Coetzee#s argu"ents about rivalr arise, / )ould argue, "ainl fro" the for"er tradition. <or an e;tended discussion of this see <rancis Mulhern Culture4Metaculture $London: .outledge, =:::( and, as i"!ortantl , the e;change )ith Stefan Collini in the !e# Left "evie#: see Collini, -Culture Talk#, !L" $5( Jan1<eb =::%: !!. A,17,0 Mulhern, -@e ond Mataculture#, !L" $%'( Jul 1*ugust =::=: !!. +'1%:A0 Collini, -Defending Cultural Criticis"#, !L" $%+( Eov1Dec =::=: !!. 5,1&5.
7

Coetzee#s subse2uent reflections on 4ras"us#s In raise of ,olly, in !articular his account of 4ras"us#s desire to define a non1!osition outside the contests of ideological rivals, suggest that he too ca"e to have doubts about his earlier e"!hasis on the literar as a rival discourse. See Giving Offense, !!. +,1%:,. The essa on 4ras"us )as first !ublished in %&&=.
'

Derek *ttridge "ade a si"ilarl co"!elling case for a ne) a!!roach to literar histor in his introduction to eculiar Language $%&++(, see es!eciall !!. %A1%'.
5