Intertextuality and the Collaborative Construction of Narrative: J. M.

Coetzee's "Foe"
Author(s): Tisha Turk
Source: Narrative, Vol. 19, No. 3 (OCTOBER 2011), pp. 295-310
Published by: Ohio State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41289306
Accessed: 29-05-2015 07:48 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Ohio State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Narrative.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Tisha

and

Intertextuality
Collaborative
Narrative:

the
of

Construction
J. M.

Turk

Coetzee's

Foe

[A] textis all thewordsthatarein it,and notonlythosewords,buttheother

wordsthatprecedeit,hauntit,and areechoedin it.
-A. S. Byatt,On Histories
and Stories(46)
Transformative
narratives
maytakea widerangeofforms:an authormayfillin the
outlinesofa talewithgreater
tellitfrom
detail;movethestoryto a different
setting;
a different
offer
a newincharacter;
pointofviewor focalizeit througha different
ofa storyor invokea storyin orderto subvertit,producingwhatJose
terpretation
(422); or combinetheseapproachesin
AngelGarciaLandacalls"counter-narratives"
variousways.Themostexhaustive
accountofthesepossibilities
is GerardGenettes
as
Chatman
"sifts
,
which,
observes,
Palimpsests
Seymour
eruditely
throughliterary
in
tradition"
ofwhatGenettecalls"literature
(269) to producea detailedtaxonomy
theseconddegree,"
texts
that
either
,
transform,
including
hypertexts
literary
directly
otherliterary
texts(Genette5, 7).1 Genettesanalysisoftransformative
or indirectly,
a particular
narratives
is especiallyusefulifwe wishto "classify"
or "situate"
text,to
is TheHours? How bestto describe
ask,as Chatmandoes,"Whatkindofa narrative
itsrelationtoMrs. Dalloway-narratologically,
(269).
stylistically,
thematically?"
Ifwe wishto askhowreadersactuallymakesenseofsucha narrative,
however,
we willfindPalimpsests
in
less helpful,
forGenetteis almostentirely
uninterested
as a fundamentally
transformation
textualratherthan
audiences;he regardsliterary
rhetorical
thatunderstanding
suchtextsdoes
phenomenon.
Thoughheacknowledges
to someextent"dependon constitutive
that
on
the
reader's
is,
interpretive
judgement:
statesthathe "cannotsanction"thepracticeof "investing]
decision,"he explicitly
thehermeneutic
ofthereader"withtoo much"authority"
and "significance"
activity
In
Genettes
the
texts
not
the
of
view,
themselves,
(9).
processes readingthem,areof
TishaTurk
isanAssistant
Professor
ofEnglish
attheUniversity
ofMinnesota,
Morris.
Recent
publicainFanVidsandFanFiction"
inMetalepsis
tions
include
inPopular
Culture
, edited
"Metalepsis
byKarin
andSonjaKlimek.
Kukkonen
Hercurrent
research
focuses
ondigital
narratives
andmultimedia
literacies.
Vol19,No.3 (October
NARRATIVE,
2011)
2011bytheOhioState
Copyright
University

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

296

Tisha Turk

Forthoseofus whodo ascribesignificance

to readerly
importance.
primary
activity
and who understand
readers'responsesto literature
notas inherently
idiosyncratic
affairs
cued bytextual
inspiredbypersonalassociationsbutas sharableexperiences
and
Genettes
account
of
transformative
narraconventions,
phenomena interpretive
tivesis necessarily
incomplete.
All reading,ofcourse,involvessomedegreeofparticipation
bythereader.On
thelevelofan individualnovel,we trackand respondto characters,
and
anticipate
reactto plotdevelopments,
and otherwise
connectthetextualdotsin variousways.
Moregenerally,
weapplyourknowledge
ofgenres,
theaggregations
andmutualinfluencesoftextsthatshareassumptions
or traditions.
Evenbeforewe opena book,PeterRabinowitz
ofconventions
ofreadingshapes[our]
argues,our"priorknowledge
and
evaluations"
of
the
text
Rabinowitzs
oftextas unas(3).
experiences
metaphor
sembledswingset
dramatizes
the
work
that
into
act
(38-39)
goes
any ofreading:the
authorsuppliesthepieces,andthereadermustputthemtogether.
But readinga transformative
narrative
and particularly
requiresa particular,
kind
of
work:
readers
must
not
assemble
the
pleasurable,
only
swingsetpieceswe
aregivenbutalso contribute
someofthepiecesourselvesbased on our memoryof
thetextthatis beingtransformed.
Individualreadersexperiences
areaffected
byour
In
narrative
functions
toprovidethesepieces. practical
a
as transformaterms,
ability
tiveonlyto theextentthata readerrecognizes
and readsitas such:ifreadersdo not
in theconstruction
collaborate
ofthenarrative,
thenarrative
does notworktheway
itwas designedto.A readerwho encounters
JeanRhyssWideSargassoSea without
BrontesJaneEyremaystillenjoythenovel;shemaystillfind
havingreadCharlotte
it interesting,
effective.
Butwhatshe readswillbe, in a veryrealsense,a
engaging,
textthanit wouldbe forsomeonewho broughtto it a knowledgeofJane
different
narratives
liesoutsidethetext,in
Eyre.Partofthetransformative
meaningtherefore
thespacebetweentextand intertext.
Themorewe knowabouttheoverlapsandgaps
betweenthetwotexts,themorecomplicated
theprojectofassemblybecomes,and
themorecleverwe feelformanagingit.Testingthenewtextagainsttheknownone,
thesignificance
ofchangedand retainedelements,
identifying
guessingwhatmight
so farmightaffect
theshapeofthe
be alterednextor howthechangesencountered
activities
makeforan especially
highlevelofaudience
storyto come- thesereaderly
to a co-construction
ofthetext.2
participation
amounting
oftheworkthat
MY GOALin thisessay,then,is to contribute
to ourunderstanding
I arguethatundernarratives.
readersdo tomakesenseoftransformative
Specifically,
s workon what
theseactivities
requiresus to expandandextendRabinowitz
standing
whichguide"thereaders experience
he callstherulesofconfiguration
andcoherence,
its
of an unfolding
textduringtheact of reading"and herprocessof "[reworking]
oncetheactofreadingis concluded(110). Rabinowitz
elements
intoa totalpattern"
whencertainelementsappear,rulesofconcontext,
arguesthat"in a givenliterary
theseexpectations
activate
certain
Once activated,
however,
expectations.
figuration
Authors
can
make
use ofthemnot
can be exploitedin a numberofdifferent
ways.
the
thattherules
to
create
a
sense
of
resolution
is,
(that
only
bycompleting patterns

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and CollaborativeConstructionin Foe

Intertextuality

297

lead readersto expect,eitherwithor withoutdetours)butalso to createsurprise(by

themin someunanthem,or byfulfilling
them,forinstance,
bydeflecting
reversing
or
to
irritate
to
fulfill
them)"
(111). Rulesof
ticipated
(bypurposefully
failing
way)
of
"allow
us
to
makesenseof,
coherence
a
different
set
activities;
they
govern
readerly
other
a
text's
failures
to
follow
on
the
itseemed
through
configurations
things,
among
topromise-failures
wecannotknowaboutuntilthebookis over"(112).Rabinowitzs
thatwhileourunderstandings
examplesandanalysesofbothsetsofrulesdemonstrate
oftheserulesarebasedon ouraggregate
as
experience readersand oursenseofpatinmostcasesourapplication
oftherulesoperatesintratextually:
the
ternsacrosstexts,
textual
tomakesenseandourexpectations
ofwhatwill
elements
ofwhichwe'retrying
to thebookwe arereadingatthemoment.
happenarerestricted
Novelsthatrewrite
othernovels,however,
requireus to modifyourapplication
oftheserules.Whenwe reada novelwhoseintertext
we know,ourexpectations
are
or
frustrated
not
the
narrative
and
discursive
activated,
reversed,
completed,
onlyby
eventswithinthenovelwe arecurrently
readingbutalso byeventswithintheintertextand bypointsof congruenceand difference
betweenthetexts.Rulesof coherare
no
intratextual:
a
ence,too,
longermerely
readingthatcannotaccountin some
for
differences
between
texts
themto different
narway significant
byattributing
ratorsdifferent
for
or
of
a
character
s
perceptions events, example, by interpreting
in
in
one
novel
as
the
reasons
for
his
actions
the
other
is
to
feel
experiences
unlikely
entirely
satisfactory.
Authorsand readersoftransformative
narratives
maydrawon anyoftherules
ofcoherence,
we
shall
the
"rules
of
see)
surplus"(154) thatallowus to
including(as
overabundant
information.
But
we
are
most
interpret
likelyto drawon theruleofcoherencethatRabinowitz
calls"licenseto fill"(148): theunderstanding
thatnarratives
includeblanks,bothblanksthatreadersareexpectedto ignoreas unimportant
and
blanksthatreadersaremeanttofillin.In a transformative
these
blanks
narrative,
may
be intratextual,
buttheymayalso be co-textual
and intertextual:
blanksthatreaders
aremeanttofillwithinformation
fromtheintertext,
andblanksthatcanbe filledonly
therelationship
betweentextand intertext.
transformabyexamining
Additionally,
tivenarratives
can provideinformation
meantto changeour ideas abouthow we
shouldfilltheblanksin theintertexts
or oursenseofwhichblanksaresignificant
in
thefirst
co-textual
and intertextual
information
place.Thisprocessofinterpolating
butitcan onlybe completed
maybe prompted
bytheauthor,
bya readerwhois both
on theconstruction
ofthetext.3
willingand ableto collaborate
thusaffects
bothbroadlyand specifically.
RabiIntertextuality
readerly
activity
nowitzarguesthatthereare "twometarulesofconfiguration
ofwhichmanyofthe
morespecificrulesturnoutto be specialcases.First,itis appropriate
to expectthat
willhappen.Second,itis appropriate
to expectthatnotanything
canhapsomething
he argues,thereis a "fundamental
ruleofcoherence"
thatis
pen"(117). Furthermore,
We assume,to beginwith,thatthe
"parallelto thesecondmetaruleofconfiguration:
workiscoherent
andthatapparent
flawsinitsconstruction
areintentional
andmeaningbearing"(147). I wouldadd to thisassertionthat,whenwe reada transformative
attention
to itsintertext
rolein bothencouraging
us to
narrative,
playsa significant
our senseofwhatis probable.The "somepredictwhatmighthappenand limiting

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

298

Tisha Turk

ofintradiegetic
story
thing"thatwe expecttohappenincludesnotonlytheunfolding
an exofinformation
thatwillallowus bothto construct
eventsbutthepresentation
ofhowthetextsfittogether
andtointerpret
therelationship
tratextual
understanding
therelationship
betweenthem- thatwillallowus,forexample,to classify
according
shouldwe chooseto do so. We expectthisinformation
beto Genette's
categories,
with
causewe assumenotonlythattheworkitself
is coherent
butthatitsrelationship
andthatsimilarities
anddiscrepancies
betweenthetwotexts
itsintertext
is coherent,
areintentional
and significant.
of thesereaderly
and activities
focuseson J.M.
assumptions
My examination
selectedcharacters
and eventsfromDaniel Defoe's
Coetzee'sFoe, whichtransforms
a ficRobinsonCrusoeand Roxanain orderto encouragetheaudienceto construct
a storyabouta woman
tionalaccountof theirproduction.
Foe is, mostobviously,
a masterand slaveon an island
encounters
who,whilesearchingforherdaughter,
to England,triesto convincean authornamedDanielFoe to tell
and,whenreturned
herstory.ReadersawareofthecastawaystoryofRobinsonCrusoe-theshipwreck,
Coetzees
theisland- arelikelyto recognizethewaysinwhichFoe'sstoryis different:
Crusonevermakesit backto England,his Fridaydoes notspeak,and thestoryof
theislandis toldbya womannotpresentin theoriginalto a manwitha namethat
withadditionaldetailsfromthecompletenarresemblesDefoe's.Readersfamiliar
an additionalstory
rativeofRobinsonCrusoemaybe ableto beginto piecetogether
ofRobinson
Crusoeas we knowitand
toldin Foe:a storyofthewriting
notexplicitly
oftherhetorical
decisionsthat(De)Foe made,suchas addinggunsand seedsand
cannibalsforCrusoe,dividingthestoryofFoes FridaybetweenRobinsonCrusoes
Readerswho knowRoxanacan
Fridayand Xury,and deletingthefemalenarrator.
assemblea storynotcontainedin anyofthethreenovels-notonlythestoryofsiarticulated
(see,forexample,Spivak,
lencingthatothercriticshaveso compellingly
a
of
how
but
(De)Foe
Gauthier)
splitSusanBartonsstoryin
story
"Theory";
Begam;
herintoa
herfromRobinsonCrusoeand turning
twoforhisownends,eliminating
whorein Roxana.
A rhetorical
possireadingofthethreetextsthusgivesus accessto interpretive
textsbutratherin theirinterbilitiesthatarelocatednotwithinanyoftheindividual
herown,drawsthe
ofstories,
actions:Susansattention
to theconstruction
including
ofRobinsonCrusoeand Roxanaand moves
to theconstruction
audiencesattention
Foe
us backand forthamongall threetexts.4'"Tillwe havespokentheunspoken,"'
at
least
one
such
of
the
Within
come
to
the
heart
"we
have
not
Foey
(141).
story'"
says,
toconstruct.
Wecansee,
information
extratextual
unspoken/unwritten
storyrequires
instead
of
unassembled
exceeds
Rabinowitzs
that
the
novel
then,
metaphor
swingset:
additional
the
audience
the
ofmerely
Foey
supplies
putting
together partsprovidedby
findsinthe
aboutpartsthatarestillmissing,
crucialpieces,speculates
and,ultimately,
construct
this
Readers
can
of
additional
stories.
the
structures
spaces shapes
negative
in
relation
to
its
intertexts.
consider
Foe
if
are
able
to
narrative
only they
Crusoe; the
FOE'SMOSTobviousand mostdiscussedintertext
is,ofcourse,Robinson
edition's
back
the
is
made
on
between
the
two
novels
paperback
explicit
relationship

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and CollaborativeConstructionin Foe

Intertextuality

299

coverandis thuspresumably
evidenttomostreadersevenbeforetheybeginreading.
Forthosereaderswhohavesomehowmissedtheparatextual
clues,bothFridayand
Crusoappearand arenamedwithinthefirst
fivepages;thesenames,alongwiththe
desertislandsetting,
connectCoetzeesnovelto Defoe's.
Roxana? The intertextual
linkhereis notimButwhatofFoe'sotherintertext,
both
because
Roxana
is
far
less
well
known
than
Robinson
Crusoe
apparent,
mediately
andbecausethecluesaremuchlessobvious.Unlikethenames"Cruso"and "Friday,"
whichclearlypointto Crusoe, "Susan"initially
obscuresratherthanreveals,foralSusan
is
Roxanas
real
that
fact
is
disclosedquitelatein Defoe'snovel
name,
though
and onlyin passing,and thename"Roxana"appearsnowherein Foe.Roxanais thus
whileRobinsonCrusoeis primary.
Evenforthe
positionedas a secondaryintertext,
authorialaudiencefamiliar
withRoxana,theallusionsbecomeclearonlyabouthalfFoe, whena girlappearsoutsideFoe'shouse,claimstobe Susan'sdaughwaythrough
and
whenSusandeniesher.Thegirlclaimsthatshewas
ter, appearstobe heartbroken
bornin Deptford,
thatherfather
was a brewer,
thathe gambledawayhisfortune
and
abandonedthefamily,
thathermotherwas "leftdestitute,"
and thathermotherhad
a maidservant
"namedAmyor Emmy";she saysthatshehas been searching
everywhereforhermother(75-76). All oftheseelementsofthestorycorrespond
neatly
to elementsofRoxana, in whichRoxanamarriesa Deptfordbrewerwho runshis
businessintotheground,is leftinfinancial
straits
whenherhusbanddisappears,
does
indeedhavea maidnamedAmy,and is pursuedmuchlaterin lifebythedaughter
whomsheleftwithherhusband'sfamily.
, they
Thoughtheallusionsto Roxanaare moreobscurethanthoseto Crusoe
raisesimilarintradiegetic
and intertextual
questionsforan audienceawareofthem.
howdid thisstory,
Susan'sstory,
cometo be rewritten
as Robinson
Intradiegetically,
Crusoeand Roxana? Intertextually,
whatis Roxanadoingin a rewriting
ofRobinson
Crusoe? In addition,
theappearanceofthegirlwhoclaimstobe Susan'sdaughter
activatesexpectations
thatappeartobe intratextual
butthatturnoutto haveintertextual
whether
we knowRoxanaor not,we expectto findoutwhothisgirlresignificance:
we interpret
thisexpectation
as frustrated
orfulfilled
allyis,butwhether
maydepend
in largeparton whether
we recognizeRoxanaas Foe'ssecondary
intertext.
The rulesofconfiguration
to second-degree
narratives
activate,as I
particular
havesuggested,
co-textual
and intertextual
in additionto theintratexexpectations
tualexpectations
raisedbyanynovel.First,we construct
based on texexpectations
tualelements
notonlyofFoebutofRobinsonCrusoeandperhapsRoxana;we expect
somesimilarities
betweentheplotand characters
ofFoe and thoseofitsintertexts.
of theseexpectations
is necessarily
affected
(The specificity
by how wellwe know
or remember
Defoe'snovels.)Second,we construct
based on theasexpectations
thatthereis somereasonfortheseintertextual
we expectthat
sumption
relationships;
Coetzeesnovelwill,as Genettewouldsay,eitherimitate
ortransform
Defoe'sinsome
and meaningful
activatedby rulesof
perceptible
way.Like anyotherexpectations
theseexpectations
orfrustrated.
reversed,
deflected,
configuration,
maybe fulfilled,
- thattherewillbe somesimilarities
Thefirst
betweentheplotand
expectation
characters
of Foe and RobinsonCrusoe-is reversed(or perhapsfrustrated)
fairly
are notidenticalto
quickly;it doesn'ttakelongto realizethatCoetzeescharacters

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

300

Tisha Turk

or evenclearlycontiguous
withDefoes.In thecase ofCruso,thisdifference
is "ormarked"
and
Colleran
the
e.
Cruso
dif(Macaskill
439)
thographically
by
missing
fersfromCrusoein bothtemperament
and circumstances:
he broughtno supplies
fromshipwreck
to shoreand has notattempted
to keepa journal(16); he protects
"a
of
but
wild
bitter
lettuce"
cannot
sow
even
as
Crusoe
(9)
patch
grain,
inadvertently,
toplant,he spendshisdaysmakingterraces
forplanting
does;despitehavingnothing
(33); he has no storiesofhislifebeforetheisland(34), no talesofslavery
amongthe
Moorsorplantations
in Brazil.Fridayis notIndianbutAfrican,
"black:a Negrowith
- perhapscannotspeakat
a head offuzzywool"(5), and he does notspeakEnglish
all. ThoughbothFridayssharea namegivenbyCruso(e)and neither
one speakshis
ownlanguage,
thedifference
betweenthemis markedbythepresenceortheabsence
ofspeech.TheeventsofRobinsonCrusoearenowhereto be found:no discovery
ofa
no
of
a
canoe
too
to
no
herd
of
no
move,
goats, adsinglefootprint, building
heavy
ventures
withcannibals.AndthoughCruso,likeCrusoe,is rescuedfromtheisland,
he diesbeforereaching
Foe.
England(44), lessthana quarterofthewaythrough
Asthisinformation
we
the
or
characters
tobear
accumulates, stopexpecting story
some
exmuchresemblance
to Defoesand expectinsteadthatwe willeventually
get
and
for
the
differences
between
Foe
whether
or
metatextual
planation
intradiegetic
ofthesedifferences
is in parttheresultoftheinterRobinson
Crusoe.Our awareness
in whichthe
textualoperationofwhatJamesPhelanhas calleddisclosure
functions,
for
the
but
narrator
and
evaluates
information
narratee, also "uninterprets,
reports,
of
all
to
the
authorial
audience"
without
information
kinds
reports
knowing
wittingly
Phelandescribestheoperation
thatthataudienceexists(Living12).LikeRabinowitz,
withinsingletexts:"Themostimportant
ofthisphenomenon
consequenceofserial
functions
work
not
he explains,is that"thedisclosure
narration,"
onlyin relationto
butalsoacrosstheserialnarration;
thenarrative
functions
ofeachnarrator
disclosure,
inotherwords,arisesbothwithinindividual
narrations
andas a resultoftheirinteracinwhichthedisclosure
ofLolitasdeath
tion"(197-98).Amonghisexamplesis Lolitay
thedisclosureis
usinghermarriedname,in thepreface;
beginswhenitis reported,
heldin suspensionformostofthenoveland is completedor confirmed
onlywhen
so thatNabokovuses
mentions
hermarried
nameattheendofhisnarration,
Humbert
himself
doesnotknow
todiscloseinformation
totheaudiencethatHumbert
Humbert
to theaudiencethatherstory
(14). In thecase ofFoe, Susanis unwittingly
reporting
whathas been
is notthestoryDefoewrote;sheis,as we see in retrospect,
revealing
ofan explanation,
Ourexpectation
added(adventure)
andexcised(herself).
too,is the
sectionofthenovel,the"you"
thatthenarratee
ofthefirst
productofthedisclosure
is a versionofDefoe;Foe'spresencein thenarrative
whomSusanaddresses,
suggests
forhowthestorySusanhasjusttoldcametobe writthatwewillgetsomeexplanation
ten,by(De)Foe,as thestory(or stories)withwhichwerealreadyfamiliar.
ifwe beginbyacknowledging
Itbecomesdecidedlyeasierto see Foeas coherent
it is,in largepart,whatGarciaLanda
aboutstorytelling;
thatthenovelis primarily
"a narrative
ofrhetoric,
calls"narrated
(443) and Phelancallsa narrative
narrating"
whosecentraleventis thetellingofa story"(Narrative
1)- or,inthiscase,thewriting
In thefirst
ofa story.
twosectionsofthenovel,Foe's centraleventis itsownprocess
ofbeingwritten
as thebookweholdin ourhands.As StephenConnorhasnoted,the

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and CollaborativeConstructionin Foe

Intertextuality

301

novels"mainconcernis notwiththeeventswhichhavetakenplace on theisland,

to Foe
ofthoseevents"(93); Susanis writing
overthenarrative
butwiththestruggles
events
and
the
the
of
raw
fortheparticular
materials,
perceppurpose passingalong
David Marshall
intoa publishable
narrative.
tions,thatshewisheshimto transform
boththestoryof RobinsonCrusoeand thestoryof
arguesthatCoetzee"rewrites
"
Adventures
thewriting
ofTheLifeand Strange
ofRobinsonCrusoe (225),
Surprizing
his
and certainly
bothstoriesareatstakein Foe.Butwe do notin factseeFoe writing
Foes
based
on
the
must
the
of
the
audience
novel(s).Rather,
writing
imagine story
ofFoes intertexts.
cluesCoetzeegivesus and ourknowledge
lia specifically
intertextual
versionofRabinowitzs
constitutes
Suchimagining
not
with
the
usual
I
readers
of
Foe
are
censetofill.As suggested
earlier,
presented only
andintertextual
blanksbutwithco-textual
blanks:blanksthatreadersare
intratextual
fromtheintertext,
andblanksthatcanbe filledonlyby
meantto fillwithinformation
betweentextand intertext.
Susanexpressesherdesireto
therelationship
examining
written
haveherexperiences
byFoe; Foe itselfis silenton thequestionofwhat(De)
Foe actuallywrote,butthatsilenceis a co-textual
blank,one thattheauthorialaudiblank- theexplanation
ofhowand why
encecan fillrelatively
easily.Theintertextual
fromSusans- is morecomplexandcanbe filled
(De)Foes versionsofthestorydiffer
ofa readerwhoconsidersthetextstogether.
onlybytheinterpretive
activity
ofintertexual
narratives
arealso likelyto requiretheapplication
Transformative
overabundant
informarulesofsurplus,
versionsofRabinowitzs
waysofinterpreting
or intertextuallyor
tion.Once again,theserulesmayoperateeitherintratextually
buthaveintertextual
resonance.In Foe, Crusogives
intratextually
theymayfunction
accountsof himself,
of Friday,and of the
Susan so manyapparently
contradictory
islandthatSusanremarks
withunderstandable
"[I]n theend I did not
exasperation,
knowwhatwas truth,
whatwas lies,and whatwas mererambling"
(12). Facedwith
thisoverabundance,
Susanherselfattempts
to applytherulesofsurplus:to decide
orextraneous"
whichstoriescanbe discardedas "unnecessary
(Rabinowitz154).For
storiescan
at leastone setofCruso'scontradictory
theauthorialaudience,however,
be madeintertextually
coherent
without
eitheroption.Crusooffers
Susan
discarding
arrivalon theisland:Fridaywas shipwrecked
with
twodifferent
accountsofFriday's
or he was "a cannibal
Crusowhenhe was '"a child,a merechild,a littleslave-boy,"'
whom[Cruso]hadsavedfrombeingroastedanddevouredbyfellow-cannibals"
(12).
The secondofthesestoriescorresponds
to theaccountofFridaygivenin Robinson
as sucheventosomeonewithonlyvaguememoCrusoeandis probably
recognizable
hiscapturers
andCrusoedispatches
thetwopurriesofthestory:after
escapes
Friday
suerswithhisgun,FridayplaceshisheadunderCrusoe'sfoot(160-61). ButCruso's
in Robinson
first
accountofFriday's
character
Crusoe:Xury,
originsrecallsa different
theAfricanboywhomCrusoetakeswithhimwhenhe escapestheMoors(20-21)
andwhomhe subsequently
sellsintoslavery(28-29).
Fortheauthorialaudience,then,bothstoriescan be true:thesurplusoforigin
can
storiesforCoetzeesFriday,
as wellas thediscrepancy
betweenthosetwostories,
be resolvedeitherintertextually
or intradiegeticallyorboth,sincetheyarenotmuDefoesXuryis thesourceofCoetzee'salternate
tuallyexclusive.
Intertextually,
origin
forFriday.
and
Intradiegetically, keepingin mindtheimpulseto explainhowSusan's

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

302

Tisha Turk

as RobinsonCrusoe
narrative
came to be rewritten
, a different
storyemerges:Foe,
accounts
of
creates
two
to
either
of
Crusos
separatecharacFriday,
unwilling giveup
ters:theAfricanslaveboyandtheCaribbeancannibal.Lookedatthisway,Foe splits
, justas Fridaystongue
Fridayat theroot- thepointoforigin-inRobinsonCrusoe
imin
The
has extratextual
have
been
Foe
(84).
split
explanation
intradiegetic
might
of
both
as
Susan
"not
the
of
Foe's
says,
plications: story
Friday-perhaps
Fridays-is,
a storybuta puzzleor hole in thenarrative"
intowhichwe mustdescend"toopen
mouthandhearwhatitholds:silence,perhaps,ora roar"(121,142).To hear,
Friday's
notonlybycoloand perhapsalso to see:whatis (not)inside,whatwas legitimated
nialismand slaverybutalso by(De)Foes whitewriting
(see Begam),which,within
the
blankness
of
Robinson
Crusoey
Fridayspage.
disguises
whichI will
criticalattention,
CoetzeesFridayhas alreadyreceivedsignificant
with
notrecapitulate
here.Instead,I turnonce againto Roxana.Foe'srelationship
Roxana has been recognizedby a small numberof critics includingAttridge,
DominicHead, and Gayatri
SusanVanZantenGallagher,
Marshall,David Attwell,
on readand itseffects
ofthatrelationship
Spivak- butthesignificance
Chakravorty
A
remainrelatively
underdiscussed.
ers attempts
to makeFoe a coherentnarrative
readerfamiliar
onlywithRobinsonCrusoecan see thatFoe has removedSusanfrom
thatnovel,presumably
because,as Susansuspects,he findsthestoryof theisland
"better
withoutthewoman"(72)- justas "itwouldhavebeenbetterhad Crusoreschestas well,and built
cued notonlymusketand powderand ball,buta carpenter's
withRoxanacan fillin additionalblanks.
himself
a boat"(55). Buta readerfamiliar
Crusoe
As withtheFriday/Xury
, we can see therelationexamplefromRobinson
Foecontainsa series
shipbetweenRoxanaandFoein twowaysatonce.Intertextually,
mistherealnameofDefoe's"fortunate
ofallusionstoRoxana; Coetzeehasborrowed
as an extension
ofRoxanashistory.
a storythatcan be understood
tress"and written
ofSuRoxanais Foes rewritingand,itseems,misrepresentationIntradiegetically,
thenarrative
weknowas Roxanaoutofa girl'sdemands
hecobblestogether
sansstory;
and Susan'sdenials.Foe thusframesbothRobinsonCrusoeand Roxanaas instances
an
froma nameand a situation-a castawayand hisservant,
of(De)Foes beginning
a
new
on
that
and
to
be
Susan's
story
building
importunate
daughter
girlclaiming
thatdon'tsuithispurposes.
theelements
ofhistory
whilediscarding
foundation
one
does notwanttold- becomes
the
she
that
"Barton's
storyAttridge
argues "
Defoe'snovelRoxana (78). Butin fact,thereis littleevidencewithinFoe to suggest
thatRoxanais reallySusanBarton's
storyor thatSusancouldbe thewomanthisgirl
insiststhatsheis notand cannotbe: shehas neverlived
is lookingfor.Susanherself
was
neverhad a servant(76), and herdaughter
in Deptford,
neverknowna brewer,
notabandonedbutabducted(10). WecouldassumethatSusan,likeRoxana,is simply
to thegirl,butthefactthatshe claimsto be pursuinga
lyingaboutherrelationship
tends
to workagainstthisidea:whywouldshe denythe
not
one,
daughter, evading
We haveno reasonwithinFoe notto trust
to
have
been
she
claims
seeking?
daughter
Foeherownevidencethatthegirlis mistaken:
Susanoffers
Susansassertions.
Further,
"Youconfusemewithsomeotherperson."
She smilesagainand shakesherhead. "Beholdthesignbywhichwe

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and CollaborativeConstructionin Foe

Intertextuality

303

shesays,andleansforward
andplacesherhand
mayknowourtruemother,"
besidemine."See,"she says,"wehavethesamehand.The samehandand
thesameeyes."
I stareat thetwohandssidebyside.Myhandis long,hersshort.Her
aretheplumpunformed
ofa child.Her eyesaregrey,mine
fingers
fingers
brown.Whatkindofbeingis she,so serenely
blindto theevidenceofher
senses?(76)
To thissuggestion
thatthegirlis notin factSusan'sdaughter,
theauthorial
audience- who,unlikeSusan,has readRoxana- can add one particularly
tellingpiece
ofinformation:
thegirlin Foe neversuggests
thatSusanhas a history
ofprostituting
In Defoe'snovel,Roxanasdaughter
herself.
inRoxanasTurkish
costume,
recognizes
fers(correctly)
thathermotheris a courtesan,
and threatens
to makethatinformationpublicunlessRoxanaacknowledges
her- all significant
plotpoints;thegirlin
Foe mentionsno suchrecognition
and makesno suchthreats.
Herstorythusfailsin
severalimportant
andtherefore
waystomatchup withthestoryofRoxanasdaughter
failsto establish
thatSusancanbe equatedin anysimplewaywithRoxana.
Once again,Susan herselfattempts
to rendercoherentthisoverabundance
of
information
herpurported
as "a poormadgirl"(77): madness
bydescribing
daughter
wouldexplainthings.Butthisexplanation,
thoughperhapsintradiegetically
satisfyis notparticularly
foran audience,who is likelyto
ingforthecharacter,
satisfying
wantto knowhowthegirl,mador not,fitsintothenovel.In thisinstance,
then,itis
to understand
Foe as a coherent
wholewithout
intertexdecidedlydifficult
applying
tualknowledge
ofRoxana.
Ifwe do applythatintertextual
thenovelbeginstomakemoresense.
knowledge,
Coetzeeuses themismatch
betweenstoriesto suggestthatRoxanais in factnotthe
does,thatSusan's
storySusandoes notwanttoldaboutherpast;to say,as Attridge
a different
version
story"becomes"Roxanais to misstheextenttowhichFoe invents
ofthatstoryforthepurposesofhisownnovel.Theintertextual
blank,then-thegap
betweenRoxanaand Foe--is betterfilledwitha morecomplicated
story:in addition
to writing
Susanout ofRobinsonCrusoe, Foe writesherintotheroleofwhore.He
inventsthecourtesan
beginswiththegirl'sstoryofbeingabandonedbyhermother,
as a reasonforthemotherto leave,usesthatcourtesanhistory
as thereason
history
themotherwillnotacknowledge
herdaughter,
and endsthestoryby suggesting
a
mentalbreakdown
thatwouldaccountforwhathe treatsas Susan'srepression
ofher
memories
ofherdaughter
Susanas a courtesan
is based
(130). His choicetorepresent
aboutheruncertain
butseemsalso to
partlyon herownwrycomments
reputation
derivefromhisdiscomfort
withSusan'ssexualexperience
andparticularly
hersexual
"I drewoffmyshiftand straddledhim (whichhe did notseemeasy
assertiveness:
to controlSusan'ssexuality
andher
with,in a woman)"(139). Roxanais Foe'sattempt
story;likethemothernarrative
proposedin Foe, itfixesSusanwithintheconstraints
ofavailablerolesforwomen.
Robinson
Crusoe
Thus,whileSpivakclaimsthat,withinFoe, wearetounderstand
as "theroadnottaken"("Theory"167),I wouldarguethatin factwe aremeantto see
bothCrusoeandRoxanaas roadsnotyettaken-or,rather,
as novelsnotyetwritten;

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

304

Tisha Turk

thestoryof theirbeingwritten
afterall is thestorythattheauthorialaudienceis
intertextual
meantto supply.Eitherreadingrequiresthereaderto applyspecifically
betweenthe
thedifferences
rulesof coherenceto Foe. Spivakswayof reconciling
Foe
of Crusoe.But,as I havesuggested,
novelsis to see Foe as thealternate
history
anotherwayto reconcilethetwotexts.Attheveryend ofthethirdsectionof
offers
Foe, whenSusanthanksFoe fortakingherin,for""welcoming
[her]and embracing
'"Before
and
Foe
[her] receiving
[her]story,"' respondsbysaying,
youdeclareyourself
I
The
authorial
too freely,
wait
to
see
what
fruit
bear"
audience,unlike
Susan,
(152).
Roxana
offnot
have
to
the
fruits
are
Robinson
Crusoe
and
does
, written
wait;
Susan,
the
fourth
the
end
of
Foe
s
third
section
and
the
of
between
section,
beginning
stage
s discovery
ofa
inthegapbetweentheendofSusansnarration
andtheothernarrator
'
"
betweenthestorytellblueplaquereadingDanielDefoe, Author(155). Thecontrast
whileSusansmemoirlanguishesin
ersis clear:(De)Foe becomesa famousauthor,
full
of
Foes
rhetorical
choicesis clearonlyto
But
the
manuscript.
story
crumbling
thosereaderswhocan fillFoes textualgapswithdetailsfromDefoesnovels.
offact"(3), wemight
Robinson
Crusoeas "ajusthistory
GiventhatDefoepresents
them
or overwriting
intoquestionbydisplacing
expectCoetzeeto call those"facts"
account
as
the
witha different
setof(fictional)
to asktheaudienceto accepthis
facts,
trueversionof(fictional)
pastevents.Andto someextentwe do acceptthataccount:
thatarein manyways
becauseSusanstaleoftheislandrecordseventsand conditions
that
in Robinson
Crusoe
moreplausiblethanthosenarrated
, theaudiencecan pretend
Crusoeand Roxanaarebased.Atthesame
Foe is "therealstory"on whichRobinson
thatthebookis a transformaelements
areconstant
reminders
time,Foe'smetafictional
tivework.Defoesfamously
reportorial
stylecreatestheillusionthateventsarebeing
theprocessofnarrain an unselective
narrated
way,butCoetzee,byforegrounding
as
actitself,
theauthorspowerto present
therhetorical
tiveconstruction,
emphasizes
andexclusion
theprocesses
ofselection
foundthatwhichisalwaysmade;hesuggests
by
- becomesthenarrative.
- oneofmanypossiblenarratives
whicha narrative
is a crucialpartofthenovel'spolitics.
Thisemphasison theprocessofnarrating
also drawsourattento theactofstorytelling
Withinthenovel,callingourattention
whichremainsuntiononce againto theplaceswheretellingstops:Fridaysstory,
or toldbySusanor Foe; Susans
and unspoken,
andwhichcannotbe written
written
whichshedoes notsharewithFoe. Throughthe
storyofherquestforherdaughter,
to whatmust
differences
betweenhistextand Defoes,Coetzeedrawsour attention
be- or,likeFridaystongue,mighthavebeen- cutoutin orderto producecoherent
revealstheconworldbutsimultaneously
he immersesus in a fictional
narratives;
structedness
ofthatworld.Foe is thusnotin anyuncomplicated
waythe"true"story
Foe
thatno narrative-including
ofCruso(e)or SusanBartonbutrathera reminder
itself-can evertellthewholetruth.
thepremisethatFoeis the"truestory"
andprovisionally
ACCEPTINGTEMPORARILY
on whichRobinsonCrusoeand Roxanaarebased does havethevalueofpreserving
thepresenceof (a versionof) Defoe on
a wayof understanding
mimesis:it offers
so
as
his
thesame fictional
that,as Susansays,"we are all in the
characters,
plane

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and CollaborativeConstructionin Foe

Intertextuality

305

of
sameworld"(152). Fromthispointofview,thenovelitself
explorestheconditions
theprocessbywhichauthorsmakestoriesoutoffacts.ButCoetextualproduction,
from
awarenessthatcharacters
use ofourmetatextual
tzeealso makesnon-mimetic
thattwopreviously
witheachother,
morethanone Defoenovelareinteracting
sepaAs LindaHutcheonsaysofCarlosFuentes's
ratenovelshavebeenbroughttogether.
if
TerraNostra
, "therealistnotionofcharacters
onlybeingableto coexistlegitimately
in
historical
and
fictional
here
both
is
same
text
to
the
clearlychallenged
theybelong
a kindoftexfrommultiple
novelssuggests
terms"(Politics77). Includingcharacters
tualporousness:physicalboundariesbetweenbookson a shelfhavebrokendown;
ifnot
characters
fromonenovelhavewanderedintotheneighboring
book;confusion
chaosensues.Spivakobservesthat"itis as ifthemarginsofboundbooksarethemselvesdissolvedintoa generaltextuality"
("Theory"163). Lookingat thenovelthis
and
tellsherstoryin a novelthatsostensibly
when
Roxanas
appears
daughter
way,
textual
we
from
Robinson
characters
about
Crusoe, recognizethegirlas a specifically
fictional
characters
her
maid
to
be
and
Marshall
the
as
notes, girl
intrusion;
"appear
whohaveescapedfromthepagesofDefoe'sRoxanato intrudeuponSusan's'reality'
in thesense
and themaidare not"real"characters
in Foe" (233-34). The daughter
are
a
function
oftext,
"substantial
thattheystandforwhatSusancalls
bodies";they
adrift
from
and
somehow
come
written
intobeing,as Susansuspects,
byFoe himself,
theirownbook.
is done"
WhenSusandescribesherlifeas "drearily
suspendedtill[Foe's]writing
are a
thatthecharacters
ifunconsciously,
raisesthepossibility
(63), she explicitly,
to "substantial"
untethered
seriesoffloating
personsand events:Susanand
signifiers
intobeing
havebeen,withintheworldofthenovel,written
theother"real"characters
intobeingbyDefoe- andCoetzee).Coetzee
byFoe (as theywereinourworldwritten
functions-their
thusemphasizeswhatPhelanwouldcall thecharacters'
synthetic
- and the
withinthelargerconstruct
ofthework"
constructs
as "artificial
operations
mimetic
functions"theways
andthemorefamiliar
tensionbetweenthosefunctions
workas representations
ofpossiblepeople"(Living13, 12). The
in whichcharacters
withthegirlwhoclaimsto be herdaughter,
dreamlike
qualityofSusan'sinteractions
andis Foe'screation,
orderofreality'"
thatthegirlis from'"another
Susan'sstatements
thepossibility
thatMrsAmylives"not far,notfarat all'"(136) becausesheand the
thatSusanlivestheretoo- takentogirland Jacklivein Foe'shead,theimplication
a matter
ofthenovelas purelytextual,
thesethingssuggestan interpretation
gether,
bodiesbutto otherwords:"all mylife
notto actual(ifimaginary)
ofwordsthatrefer
growstobe storyand thereis nothingofmyownleftto me'"(133).
been discussedas a poststructuralist
Foe has frequently
novel;I would argue
itsintertextuality
withRoxanaas wellas RobinsonCrusoeis keyto
thatrecognizing
The conventional
how Foe "does"poststructuralism.
understanding
understanding
as Susanwouldsay,substantial
ofwordsis thattheyrepresent
meaning-represent,
we are supposedto imaginethemas real,
bodies.Evenifthosebodiesarefictional,
fictional
is one ofthepleasuresofreadingfiction:
becausethatprocessofimagining
and
those
fictional
actions
are
bodiesexist,theydo fictional
represented
by
things,
Foe
is
of
sense
of
realtext.Butthesecond-and-simultaneous
that,
way making
just
creates
theprocessofwriting
as languagecreatesratherthanrepresents
knowledge,

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

306

Tisha Turk

rather
thanrepresents
characters.
As Jean-Paul
putsit,"Thetextsengender
Engelibert
thecharacters,"
so that"to'be is to 'be narrated'"
and theothercharacSusan
(273).
otherfictions.
tersdont represent
substantial
Susan herself
bodies;theyrepresent
whenshedescribesas "'fatherborn'"
articulates
thispossibility
the
(91)
girlwhopurFoe
that
the
"a
another
order
to
be
her
and
tells
is
creature
from
ports
daughter
girl
for
her"
The
as
words
made
is
Susan
(133).
up
suspects,
speaking
you
girl indeed,
Thetensionbetweenthecharacters'
andmimetic
Foes,orDefoes,creation.
synthetic
ends.
functions
thusservesthematic
eitherforus or forSusan)
Thepossibility
uncertain
and unverifiable
(however
to
ofFridays
thatthecharacters
arepurelytextualcontrasts
sharply thepersistence
in
in
are
their
own
the
novels
final
which
"bodies
section,
signs"(157),inwhich
body
and
the
rest
of
the
characters
is
still
alive.
Susan
mayor maynotbe only
onlyFriday
thussimultaneously
it
is
more
substantial
than
that.
Coetzee
text,butFriday, seems,
in which
tradition
in a rhetorical
(and,morerecently,
poststructuralist)
participates
and
or knowledge
outsidelanguageand insistson thepossibility
thereis no history
orinthatareyetunwritten,
ofpersonalandracialhistories
unarticulated,
legitimacy
thatcanbe neither
outsidetheirowncontexts-histories
represented
comprehensible
norcreatedthrough
whitewriting.
nowfictional
Foemakesdecidedly
Coetzees invention
ofthefictional
pointsabout
- thestoriesof
thewaysin whichsomestories
theconditions
oftextualproduction,
or suppressedor silenced;otherstoriesare
women,slaves,savages-are simplified
Roxana
thatdoesnotfittheirpatterns.
madecoherent
excluding
anything
byforcibly
as we knowit is onlypossibleifwe excludetheisland;RobinsonCrusoeis possible
of Coetzeesnovel,then,is to pointout how
onlyifwe excludeSusan.One effect
SusanBartondid notexist,to remindus thatshe was once unwritable.
completely
he remindsus that
ofa femalecastaway,
Evenas he asksus to imaginethepossibility
in thenew,thenovelnevertheless
did notlegitimate
interest
theeighteenth-century
thetellingofsuchstories.
LITERARY
CRITICISM"reads"a text,butalso directsitsreadersbacktothetextbeing
ourunderstanding
to ensurethatwhenwe re-readthetextourselves
read;itattempts
A transformative
ofitwillbe different.
narrative,
too,does criticalwork:as Genette
as a metatext"
to someextentfunctions
"thehypertext
observes,
(397),so thatto read
or
whether
WideSargassoSea is to re-read,
Jane
literally figuratively, Eyre.Theauthor
elements
oftheintertext(s),
toparticular
notonlytellsa storybutdrawsourattention
of
narrationthat
an
of
detailsof
of
characterization,
interpretation
plot,
particular
Rabiin
In
some
must
account
for
theintertextual
way. anyinterpretation,
relationship
to keeptrackof,muchlessaccountfor,all thedenowitzpointsout,"itis impossible
whenthey
features
tailsofa text Readersneedtoignoreorplaydownmanytextual
readlyricpoetry;theyneedto ignoreevenmorein longerworkslikenovels"(19-20).
readersinterpretive
identifies
TherulesthatRabinowitz
governbutcannotdetermine
neverbe definimatter
most
can
elements
of
which
textual
the
processes; question
what
leads
tointerpretive
is
of
course
this
and
answered,
perpetual
contestability
tively
narratives
suchas Foe constitute
We mightsay,then,thattransformative
differences.

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and CollaborativeConstructionin Foe

Intertextuality

307

aboutwhatshouldnotbe ignoredorplayeddownin theirintertexts.

arguments
Foe modelswhatEdwardSaid has called"contrapuntal
reading"(51), in which,
texts
not
see
canonical
double
we
a
kind
of
vision,
onlyin conventional,
through
artifacts
thatdid
ofa colonialculture,
aesthetic
termsbutalso as artifacts
established,
andreference"
buthelpedtobuildimperial"structure
reflect
notmerely
[s] ofattitude
as England'ssocialmission,was
understood
(62). Spivakobservesthat"imperialism,
ofEnglandto theEnglish"and that"the
a crucialpartoftheculturalrepresentation
shouldnotbe ignored"
ofculturalrepresentation
in theproduction
roleofliterature
on
its
ownwritten-ness,
its
Foe
("Three"243);
prethrough emphasis
foregrounds,
tojoin andto resist
Foe
us
of
that
scene
production. encourages simultaneously
cisely
text;this
bythetransformed
joiningtheauthorialaudienceassumedor constructed
metafictionsnovelsthat"are
doublenessis whyHutcheondescribeshistoriographic
eventsand
also layclaimtohistorical
andyetparadoxically
self-reflexive
. . . intensely
as
Wide
narratives
such
transformative
Poetics
5), including
Sargasso
personages"(
thecanon.Butinsofaras transforand subverting
Sea and Foe- as bothre-installing
textsbutmodel
notonlyperform
mativenarratives
contrapuntal
readingsofspecific
thatprocessofreadingin a waythatmightbe adoptedand morewidelyappliedby
havethepotentialto reachbeyond
individualflesh-and-blood
readers,theireffects
bookswithwhichtheyengage.
thebordersoftheparticular
whenhe writesthat"Stotheneedforreaderly
Coetzeehimself
activity
registers
more-as
is
not
a
of
...
Storytelltheysay- effective.'
way makingmessages
rytelling
...
a
mode
of
is
an
other
bymarginal
thinking. [Itis] mode favoured
ing another,
- groupsthatdon'thavea place in themainstream,
in themainplotofhisgroups
what
the
it
is
hard
to
down
pointis" ("TheNovel"
pin
unequivocally
tory-because
down
its
then
theremustbe value
of
If
value
is
the
fiction's
4).
point,
difficultypinning
outwhatthepointis- thatis,in theworkthereaderdoes, the
in theattempt
to figure
becausethetextis a question
and rewarding
and interesting
workthatis difficult
innovelsnotmerely
as
is
interested
Coetzee
answer
is
never
whose
fullyagreedupon.
historical
circumstances"
real
historical
forces
and
real
of
investigations
"imaginative
is
a wayof"demythologising
(3). If"history"
(2) butas "a rivalto history,"
history"
if
it
is
and
associatedwithclosingdowninterpretive
possibilities
always inevitably
thatrefusesto choose,that
partial(in all sensesof theword)- thenthenarrative
andmultiplies
and refracts
it,thatcomplicates
displacestheclassicwithout
replacing
Butsuchnovelsrequirean
is positionedas an alternativea rival to history.
itself,
in thisdemythologizing.
withthestoryteller
audiencewhois preparedto collaborate
our
In historical
as in literary
thewayin whicha storyis toldaffects
narratives,
narration
refeatures
ofhistorical
ofwhatthatstoryis; therhetorical
understanding
ofthenarrated
eventsand enableothers.As DorritCohn
strictsomeinterpretations
oftruthand falhistorical
narratives
are"subjecttojudgments
remindsus,however,
are"immuneto suchjudgments"
whilefictional
narratives
(15). Historiographic
sity,"
are
butsuchfictions
thisdistinction
tovarying
metafictions
degrees,
maycomplicate
in thesensethattheir"references
to theworld
stillwhatCohn calls"nonreferential"
to the
outsidethetextarenotboundto accuracy"and theydo not"refer
exclusively
can
narrative
realworldoutsidethetext"(15; emphasisoriginal).A transformative
be neither
morenorless"true"thanitsintertext,
thoughitmaybe moreorlesscom-

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

308

Tisha Turk

pellingto an individualreader.We cannotcall WideSargassoSea or Foe "thereal

story";whatappearsto be "revealed"in thesenovelsis justas mucha rhetorically
constructed
fiction
as is JaneEyreor RobinsonCrusoeor Roxana.Buttherhetorical
interanimation
oftextand intertext
drawsourattention
to something
thatis neither
rhetorical
norfictional:
thehistorical
thecultural
and
events,
prejudices, thenationalistimpulsesthatare,in different
the
pointofbothbooks.
ways, starting
In thefinalsectionof Foe, an unnamednarrator
threehundredyears
writing
aftertheeventsofRobinsonCrusoefindsthedead bodiesofSusanBartonand Daniel (De)Foe and thelivingbodyof Fridayand is thentransported,
throughSusans
to
an
in
alternate
which
Susan
has
at
manuscript,
history
perished sea and Friday
remainsunderwater
survives.
The
threatens
to
unwriteitsown story:if
yet
ending
Susandrowns,eitherbeforeshe evergetsto theislandor beforeshe makesitback
to England,she cannotwritethenarrative
thatwe havebeen reading,thenarrative
thatbringsthenew narrator
to thisscene.Althougha numberof criticstreatthis
narrator
as a fictional
versionof Coetzeehimself,
it is, I think,significant
thatthe
narrator
is represented
notas a writer
butas a reader,
someonewhois,quiteliterally,
movedbySusansnarration,
thebookthatwe arenowbothfinishing
and beginning
to re-read-<aAt
lastI couldrowno further"
(5, 155)- and thatmodelsforus both
thedifficulty
andthenecessity
ofreadingandlistening
in orderto recover
differently
untoldstories.
ENDNOTES
I wishtothank
BeccaGercken,
SarahMonette,
RobNixon,
andespecially
Kerschbaum,
Stephanie
Phelan
fortheir
toearlier
versions
ofthisessay.
James
generous
responses
1. I havechosen
not
tousetheterm
"transformative
narrative"
rather
thanGenettes
"hypertext"
intheage
asChatman
hascometohavea specific
because,
out,"hypertext"
points
only
meaning
inthecontext
the
oftheInternet
theterm,
ofGenettes
obscures
schema,
(270)butbecause
larger
that
extent
towhich
second
narratives
andmetatextualis,the
degree
maybeboth
hypertextual
orcritiqueGenette
himself
extent
towhich
they
mayoffer
commentary
acknowledges
though
"imitative"
connotes
a lack
thatthecategories
arenotmututally
exclusive
term
(7).Chatmans
andunduly
Garcia
Landasterm
"counteroforiginality
thatI find
bothmisleading
negative.
ofoneclassoftransformative
narratives
butflattens
outthe
narrative"
isanexcellent
description
ofpossible
between
texts
(422).
relationships
range
ineveryday
2. Thepractice
ofcollaborative
narration
isonewith
which
ofusarefamiliar
many
inconversation,
finds
that
theintroInhisstudy
ofgroups
stories
NealNorrick
speech.
retelling
aretypically
collaborative
narration:
stories
duction
ofa familiar
"[Rjetold
prefprompts
story
toinvolvewhich
labelthem
asunoriginal;
animate
acedinways
participants
yetthese
signals
. . . . [I]tis
them
therelevance
andtellability
ofthestories
rather
thancuing
toquestion
ment,
which
influences
sinceitpresents
thefamiliarity
ofstory
content
participation
rights,
precisely
itseems,
theopportunity
forsignificant
co-narration"
narratives,
(200).Transformative
maysiginsimilar
andforsimilar
asconversational
nal"unoriginality"
purposes
speech.
ways
inwhich
texts
informs
the
3. Although
willfocus
ontheways
ofearlier
mydiscussion
knowledge
andcoherence
oftherules
ofconfiguration
ofa later
intertextual
text,
applications
interpretation
text
informs
canwork
inbothdirections:
theauthorial
audiences
ofthetransformed
knowledge
text
ourunderstanding
ofthetransformative
butourknowledge
ofthetransformative
text,
may

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and CollaborativeConstructionin Foe

Intertextuality

309

Sara reader
whoreadsWide
ourunderstanding
ofthetransformed.
alsoaffect
So,forexample,
rather
islikely
toexperience
Bronte's
novel
she(re)reads
Jane
differently
Eyre
gassoSeabefore
A transformative
narinterms
ofbothconfiguration
andcoherence.
thansheotherwise
might,
text
of"textual
rative
theperception
(Rabinowitz
45)intheearlier
disjunctures"
mayevencreate
them
before.
wedidnotperceive
where
two.
than
oneintertext,
ittransforms
4. Foeisanunusual
case:rather
(andcombines)
transforming
Foe,
twointertexts
iscrucial
tounderstanding
Butwhile
theinteraction
ofthese
understanding
inreading
tothose
involved
thereaderly
activities
involved
are,I believe,
comparable
anytranstobeofdegree
than
ofkind.
differences
aremore
formative
narrative;
likely

WORKS CITED
andtheEthics
Literature
intheEvent
Univ.
of
Derek.
/.M.Coetzee
ofReading:
Chicago:
Attridge,
2004.
Press,
Chicago
andthePolitics
Univ.
ofCalifornia
David.
South
Attwell,
/.M.Coetzee:
Africa
ofWriting.
Berkeley:
1993.
Press,
inJ.M.Coetzees
Foe?South
Atlantic
Richard.
andMut(e)ilation:
White
"Silence
Begam,
Writing
93.1(1994):111-29.
Quarterly
Edited
Mason.
NewYork:
1996.
Charlotte.
Bronte,
Jane
Eyre.
byMichael
Penguin,
Harvard
2000.
A.
On
Histories
and
Stories:
Selected
Univ.
S.
Press,
Essays.
Cambridge:
Byatt,
Narrative."
InA Com"Mrs.
TheHours
asSecond-degree
Chatman,
Seymour.
Dalloways
Progeny:
edited
Phelan
andPeter
269-81.
toNarrative
Oxford:
J.Rabinowitz,
panion
Theory,
byJames
2005.
Blackwell,
1986.
Coetzee,
J.M.Foe.NewYork:
Penguin,
6.1(1988):
2-5.
. "TheNovel
Today."
Upstream
TheDistinction
Baltimore:
Univ.
1999.
Dorrit.
Press,
Cohn,
Johns
Hopkins
ofFiction.
InLiminal
OntheEthics
ofLiterary
Reversion."
Postmodernisms:
Steven.
Connor,
"Rewriting
Wrong:
andthe(Post-)Feminist,
ThePostmodern,
the(Post-)Colonial,
edited
andHans
byTheoD'haen
79-97.Amsterdam:
1994.
Bertens,
Rodopi,
Edited
Richetti.
Daniel.
Robinson
Crusoe.
London:
2001.
Defoe,
byJohn
Penguin,
. Roxana.
Edited
London:
1982.
byDavidBlewitt.
Penguin,
"Daniel
Defoe
asCharacter:
Subversion
oftheMyths
ofRobinson
Crusoe
and
Jean-Paul.
Engelibert,
InRobinson
andMetamorphoses,
oftheAuthor."
Crusoe:
edited
Myths
SpaasandBrian
byLieve
267-84.
NewYork:
St.Martins
1996.
Press,
Stimpson,
VanZanten.
A
Fiction
inContext.
Susan
South
J.M.Coetzees
Story
Gallagher,
of
Africa:
Cambridge:
Harvard
Univ.
1991.
Press,
InTheorizing
Garcia
theTwice-Told
Tale."
NarraLanda,
Jose
Angel.
"Narrating
Narrating:
Twisting
PierandJose
419-52.
Berlin:
Walter
deGruyter,
2008.
edited
Garcia
Landa,
tivity,
byJohn
Angel
"TheIntersection
inJ.M.Coetzees
Marni.
ofthePostmodern
andthePostcolonial
Foe."
Gauthier,
Notes
34.4(1997):52-71.
English
Language
Literature
intheSecond
Newman
and
Gerard.
Translated
Genette,
Palimpsests:
Degree.
byChanna
Claude
Lincoln:
Univ.
ofNebraska
1997.
Press,
Doubinsky.
Univ.
1997.
Head,Dominic.
Press,
J.M.Coetzee.
Cambridge:
Cambridge

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

310

Tisha Turk

APoetics
Fiction.
NewYork:
1988.
Linda.
Hutcheon,
ofPostmodernism:
History,
Theory,
Routledge,
. ThePolitics
London:
1989.
ofPostmodernism.
Routledge,
TheResistance
ofRepreand
Colleran.
Macaskill,
Brian, Jeanne
Heresy:
"Reading
History,
Writing
ofResistance
inJ.M.Coetzees
Foe"Contemporary
Literature
sentation
andtheRepresentation
432-57.
33.3(1992):
Narrative
Forms:
David.
Lesson:
Foe."InHistorical
Boundaries,
Marshall,
"Fridays
Writing
Reading
intheLong
inHonor
edonBritish
Literature
Zimmerman,
Eighteenth
Century
ofEverett
Essays
ofDelaware
2007.
andRobert
225-51.
Newark:
Univ.
itedbyLorna
Press,
Clymer
Mayer,
ofFamiliar
Stories."
inSociety
Tales:
Collaborative
Narration
NealR."Twice-Told
Norrick,
Language
26.2(June
1997):199-220.
Narration.
Ithaca:
About
It:ARhetoric
andEthics
Cornell
toTell
Phelan,
James.
ofCharacter
Living
2005.
Univ.
Press,
Univ.
Columbus:
TheOhioState
asRhetoric:
. Narrative
Audiences,
Ethics,
Technique,
Ideology.
1996.
Press,
Ithaca:
andthePolitics
Peter
Narrative
Conventions
Rabinowitz,
J.Before
ofInterpretation.
Reading:
1987.
Cornell
Univ.
Press,
1999.
L.Raiskin.
NewYork:
Wide
Sea.Edited
Norton,
Jean.
Sargasso
byJudith
Rhys,
NewYork:
1993.
Culture
andImperialism.
Said,Edward.
Knopf,
."
FoeReading
Defoes
intheMargin:
Coetzees
Crusoe/Roxana
Chakravorty.
"Theory
Spivak,
Gayatri
edited
theEnglish
InConsequences
Selected
Institute,
1987-88,
byJonathan
Papers
from
ofTheory:
1991.
Baltimore:
Univ.
154-80.
AracandBarbara
Press,
Johns
Johnson,
Hopkins
12.1(1985):
243-61.
Critical
anda Critique
ofImperialism."
. "Three
Women's
Texts
Inquiry

This content downloaded from 194.27.128.82 on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:48:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions