T. Tenente's Ezine » Dogs in Skirts, Dogs in Bags: Coetzee's Disgrace

Dogs in Skirts, Dogs in Bags: Coetzee's Disgrace

Published on November 18, 2005 By TaBoo Tenente In

Jerry Seinfeld's joke:

Q: By the way, do you know why fish are so skinny?
A: Because all they eat is fish.

Seemed funny at the time, but walking to school the other day in the cold and dark, I wondered what it was that made the joke funny.

Human mothers say it to children sometimes; so you imagine if a mother steelhead would say it to a steelhead son or steelhead daughter. There are always jokes to tell about animals doing human things. If we parade a pack of dogs around a block of bohemian thoroughfare, October 31, dressing the dogs in the most fashionable 1890's cowboy style, or in ballerina skirts, that's funny: first of all, dogs normally don't wear ballerina skirts; second, dogs are willing to let us laugh at them, all the while still loving crazy humans, and the fact that any creature in the universe would put up with us is pretty funny; and finally, in the end, we can laugh at ourselves for stuffing pitbull Spike into a rosy pink leotard (presuming, of course, that he's been fixed and his balls won't get in the way of our fun).

Two days ago I gave a presentation on Disgrace, the novel written by J.M. Coetzee. What seems marginally relevant is the relationship between protagonist Professor David Lurie and animals. David has no problem with animals, nor, on any conscious level, a problem with help-an-animal-save-a-life people; although, he admits, that sometimes such folk, if he or she has the holier-than-thou attitude, will make him want to go out for a night of rape and pillage.

Ironically the book begins with the unconsciously smug Prof. Lurie solving the "sex problem" with a Thursday-only relatonship with a prostitute. He transgresses upon (predicate use explained in book) the strict ordering of the South African caste system, on the separation between public and private life, sees her in the real world with her two sons, calls her home, and their "relationship" is ended. So he starts a relationship with one of his students. That results in a harrassment complaint. He is forced to resign, leaves town, and goes to live in the country. His lesbian daughter lives there, kennels dogs, and grows a modest crop for a living, and a neighbor, a black landowner, helps her tend the land.

And then a series of events takes place, each event serving to force a dynamic reversal of roles. David and his daughter are attacked by three young black men. They shoot the dogs, dogs locked in kennels, one at a time. They set David on fire. They take turns raping his daughter. And they steal some material goods, including David's car.

The stolen car is the only aspect of the story allowed to transgress from the private story into a public story.

Suddenly he is no longer her father--more accurately put, he feels impotent as a father. He cannot teach. She is pregnant. She is incapable either of working or abandoning her land. We discover that one of the young men who raped her is the son-in-law of the neighbor. The neighbor proposes to marry David's daughter, to take her land, to offer her his protection. To David's dismay, she accepts. He cannot understand. She tries to see things from the reverse perspective: why should she be allowed to live on the land for free? the land is theirs. Her rapers were tax collectors. He still cannot understand. The only thing she accepts about her father is his incapacity; he will never understand.

His morality does not change; that is, the code, the caste system, the rule of existence he accepts as reality will never change. But the public's perspective of David's guilt transgresses upon his private life. For the first time in his life, he experiences something more complex than guilt. He feels ashamed.

He has believed all animals to be sheep--especially sheep. He might appreciate the aesthetic of an animal. He may enjoy the eating of an animal. Perhaps, on occasion, he might give an animal a scratch or pat on the head for his own sense of rightness in the world. In the end, however, David arrives at a fundamental reversal of roles. He ushers sick dogs into the afterlife. He cares for the corpses of dogs. Within the darkest, deepest pit of shame and humility, David confronts a delicate, elusive breath of grace. There is nothing humorous about this reversal. He must accept completely despair and disgrace in order to find a slightest trace of redemption.

How easy it is to laugh at the fish joke, thanks to a typically good Seinfeld delivery, easy as laughing at a Gary Larson comic. We laugh at the animal for putting up with us. We laugh at ourselves for forcing such a relationship, such a human incarnation upon an animal--so we laugh at Best in Show.

But the humor exists only in one direction. When the roles are reversed, when we attempt to reverse any role-relationship, we experience the new dynamic as a tragedy, rather than a comedy.

Taboo's Ezine Navigator: Article Index
Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo Tenente: A Thinker's MFA Journey - Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum

Comments

No one has commented on this article. Be the first!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!