The Bookhouse Boys discussion

This is a short novel, so we'll cover it one podcast which we'll publish on September 27th...
but don't let that stop you from discussing it here first!

So, I'm a good quarter into the book and am enjoying the strange ambiguity of the setting. I thought for a while that it was northern Africa of the Roman Empire after the third Punic War, but am pretty sure a soldier's rifle was mentioned early on in the narrative.
The inquisitor's sunglasses also seemed relatively modern, but there are some references to crude ones from late B.C.E./early C.E. (Nero wore emerald ones!), so that wouldn't rule out a high-ranking imperial official having some smoked-glass shades.
It is possible, of course, that the setting is entirely fictional, too.
What do you guys think?

Interesting reading... after finishing the first chapter, I have the novel taking place around the late 19th or early 20th Century. There are mentions of sunglasses, muskets, and abattoirs. There are also mentions of carriages, horses (no cars that I can recall), and the Empire, the latter of which I took as the British Empire (and placed this story in South Africa). You're right that it's all very ambiguous... at the point where I am, we still don't have a name for the narrator. It's also possible that the story is contemporary to the novel's publication (1980), but just takes place in a relatively undeveloped part of the world (though I don't think it likely, as I think Coetzee is both attempting to perpetuate a timelessness with the text and calling to our attention the accoutrements of "civilization" within this world and how far removed and primitive they may seem to modern readers).

Dave wrote: "Interesting reading... after finishing the first chapter, I have the novel taking place around the late 19th or early 20th Century. There are mentions of sunglasses, muskets, and abattoirs. There a..."

Okay. After the confirmation on the muskets, it's clear that I was way off, but I think that's intentional, giving it a (more or less) universal kind of feel.

Matt wrote: "Okay. After the confirmation on the muskets, it's clear that I was way off, but I think that's intentional, giving it a (more or less) universal kind of feel."

I agree. "The Empire" and "barbarians" are extremely vague terms. This is a story that has played out any number of times in human history, and the text could be applying to any one (or none) of those. I don't even think Africa is mentioned in the first chapter... I was only thinking South Africa because I know that's where Coetzee is from. There are also a number of references to "the language", but no language (not even English) has yet been identified, unless I missed it. This seems intentional on the author's part... it requires quite a bit of careful dancing around something to not identify it specifically.

For the podcast:
Pronunciation of "J.M. Coetzee."

Love,
Mr. Helpful

Jim wrote: "For the podcast:
Pronunciation of "J.M. Coetzee."

Love,
Mr. Helpful"
Hey! This guy's right!
(view spoiler)[
random proof from the WebWorld:

I learned how to pronounce J.M. Coetzee’s name correctly this morning. I’ve been saying “Coat-zee,” with the accent on the first syllable. But in my first class this morning, Davide, who is from S. Africa, corrected me with the proper Afrikaans pronounciation. The “oe” sounds more like the “e” in the French “je.” Actually, the first syllable of “Coetzee” sounds exactly like the French “que.” The accent is on the first syllable. The “t” is a really hard “t” followed by an equally hard “z.” And then it gets interesting. The final “zee” is pronounced as two syllables and sounds like “zee-yeh.” The closest I can get in an American English transliteration might be “Kut-zi-yeh.” Ack!

At any rate, I stood in front of my freshman comp. class explaining my research project on Coetzee’s Disgrace and Davide raised his hand and said, “It’s Kutziyeh,” and I got to have one of those phenomenally yucky moments of acknowledging how ignorant I am. (hide spoiler)]
I um goheen tuh sownd sooooooo smarht!!

Love,
Mr. Jackass

Matt wrote: "I um goheen tuh sownd sooooooo smarht!!"
It'll be our little secret. :P

I really like how quickly the novel is delving into the crux of the Empire-builder's thought processes in Chapter 2. "For their own good" is still a disturbingly prevalent attitude in the world, and in America in particular. The narrator's comparison of the blind girl to a stray animal is as disgusting as it is honest and real.

I try to avoid casting movie roles for the novel I'm reading, but I have consistently thought of the Magistrate as Ian Holm (although he's not 'flabby' enough, I guess) and David Warner as Colonel Joll, probably due to this role: http://image.hotdog.hu/_data/members3...

I just realized I forgot to post this!:
Waiting for the Barbarians

Matt wrote: "I just realized I forgot to post this!:
Waiting for the Barbarians"

Funny, I just read that today when I was searching for criticism of the novel.
"They were, those people, a kind of solution." Hard to maintain an empire without an enemy to fear, no? Luckily, no one ever strays from our story's settlement and learns that the Empire's great enemy has no clothes.
So to speak.

I should finish the book tonight. Question: Are Joll and Mandel the only named characters? If so, why did Coetzee only name the torturers?

Matt wrote: "I try to avoid casting movie roles for the novel I'm reading, but I have consistently thought of the Magistrate as Ian Holm (although he's not 'flabby' enough, I guess) and David Warner..."

I rarely "cast" books either, but just yesterday I was telling my wife that when I read Presumed Innocent decades ago, I pictured Zeljko Ivanek as Rusty Sabich, and then Hollywood turns him into Harrison frickin' Ford.

Though I love Matt's cast, I'll go with Tom Wilkinson as the Magistrate, and Ralph Fiennes circa Schindler's List, before Amon Goeth went to pot, as Joll.

Jim wrote: "I should finish the book tonight. Question: Are Joll and Mandel the only named characters? If so, why did Coetzee only name the torturers?"
You're not quite here yet, so (view spoiler)[
He also named Mai, she worked in the kitchen and was the mother of the boy who brought the Magistrate his meals while he was imprisoned. She is only named at the end when the Magistrate (again) sleeps with her. (hide spoiler)]
But, yes, I think they are the only ones named. I saw one discussion prompt asking how may are described as being like a particular animal, why, and what does that kind of characterization mean in this book? I'll try to remember to bring this up when we record tonight. I'd love to hear someone else's thoughts, though.

EDIT: Just read this quote in The Ghost Map: The Story of London's Most Terrifying Epidemic - and How It Changed Science, Cities, and the Modern World "There is no document of civilization that is not also a document of barbarism." - Walter Benjamin.

Matt wrote: ""There is no document of civilization that is not also a document of barbarism." - Walter Benjamin.
"
Hm. Is this analogous to Robert Kirkman's survivors of the zombie apocalypse being the real "walking dead"?

The only animal comparison I remember is the Magistrate's whore's birdlike flutterings. But this reminds me of the fox cub he took in around the same time the girl stayed with him. Whatever became of that cub, anyway?