Reading 1001 discussion

June BOTM by Random Selection is Slow Man - J.M. Coetzee. Our discussion leader is Valerie.

It was nice of the randomizer to pick the book I voted for - ha, ha. I haven't read this book yet, but should get to it starting Tuesday. It's not a long novel, so it will be easy to fit in with all of the other books we 'need' to get to!

Penguin has a reader's guide for this book, here: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/bo...

I'll post their suggested discussion questions next.

1. In what ways is Paul—a sixty-year-old amputee with no wife and no children—an unlikely protagonist for a novel? How does J. M. Coetzee make of his life such a compelling story?

2. The narrator says of Paul: “A golden opportunity was presented to him to set an example of how one accepts with good cheer one of the bitterer blows of fate, and he has spurned it” (p. 15). A rehabilitation therapist later tells him, “Accept: that is all you need to do. Then all the doors that you think are closed will open” (p. 59). Why is Paul unable to accept his fate? What consequences follow from that refusal?

3. When Paul awakens in the hospital, the narrator tells us: “Frivolous is not a bad word to sum him up, as he was before the event and may still be.” Paul’s life has been “a wasted chance” (p. 19). “What could be more selfish, more miserly . . . than dying childless, terminating the line, subtracting oneself from the great work of generation” (p. 20)? How does Paul respond to this self-assessment? How does it motivate his actions in the novel? How does he try to give meaning to his life?

4. How would you explain the appearance of Elizabeth Costello in Paul Rayment’s life? She tells him, again and again, that Paul “came” to her. (“You came to me, that is all I can say. You occurred to me—a man with a bad leg and no future and an unsuitable passion” p. 85.) How are we to understand this statement? How would you account for Elizabeth’s apparent omniscience?

5. When Elizabeth first arrives in Paul’s flat, she recites a passage: “The blow catches him from the right, sharp and surprising and painful, like a bolt of electricity, lifting him up off the bicycle,” which is exactly how Slow Man begins. How would you explain this? Is she writing, or has she already written, the story of Paul’s life as it appears in Slow Man?

6. What is the significance of Paul’s having been a photographer and of his attachment to his archival collection?

7. Why does Paul fall in love with Marijana? What consequences follow from the moment when he blurts out his love for her? Should he have kept such feelings to himself? How is Paul perceived by the rest of the Jokic family?

8. Elizabeth tells Paul, “I say it again: this is your story, not mine. The moment you decide to take charge, I will fade away” (p. 100). What would it mean for Paul to “take charge”? Why would doing so make Elizabeth “fade away”?

9. “Become major,” Elizabeth tells Paul. “Live like a hero. That is what the classics teach us. Be a main character. Otherwise what is life for?” (p. 229). Does Paul follow this advice? He is the main character in Slow Man, after all, but does he live like a hero?

10. Is Paul’s attempt to “extend a protective hand” over the Jokic family misguided? Generous? Selfish? How honest is Paul about the motives for his protectiveness?

11. Do you think Paul makes the right decision at the end of the novel in declining Elizabeth’s offer to go live with her? What do you imagine the rest of Paul’s life will be like?

12. Paul tells Elizabeth: “With a little ingenuity, it seems to me, Mrs. Costello, one can torture a lesson out of the most haphazard sequence of events. Are you trying to tell me that God had some plan in mind when he struck me down on McGill Road and turned me into a hobbler” (p. 198)? Is there a lesson for Paul to learn from what has happened to him? What might that lesson be? Or is he right in suggesting that we “torture” such lessons out of random events and perhaps out of novels as well?

I'd also like to add my own question. This is my first Coetzee, and I see there are many of his books on the list. For those of you who have been chipping away at the list or are fans of his work - was this a good place to start with his oeuvre? If not, which one would you recommend as my next step?

Valerie wrote: "I'd also like to add my own question. This is my first Coetzee, and I see there are many of his books on the list. For those of you who have been chipping away at the list or are fans of his work -..."

This is my first Coetzee also.

Valerie wrote: "I'd also like to add my own question. This is my first Coetzee, and I see there are many of his books on the list. For those of you who have been chipping away at the list or are fans of his work -..."

I've read all of his books on the list except this one and Master of Petersburg (so 8 of them...too many by my estimation, but that's another thing...). All of the books are so different in topic, style, and theme that I feel starting almost anywhere is fine. Except, in the case of this book I would read Elizabeth Costello first, as the title character apparently appears abruptly at the end of this novel, and it would likely have more impact to read the book about her first. Since you are starting here, I would recommend reading that one next.

Amanda wrote: "Valerie wrote: "I'd also like to add my own question. This is my first Coetzee, and I see there are many of his books on the list. For those of you who have been chipping away at the list or are fa..."

Actually she abruptly appears less than 1/3 through. It seems like an odd device, but I'm going with it! :)

oh lol, nevermind, I thought she popped up at the end.

I have read Waiting for the Barbarians and Disgrace and disliked them both so I have been pleasantly surprised with Slow Man - so far!

I've read 3 books by the author and this will be my fourth. When I first started 1001 over in Shelfari. I asked the questions of others of where to start. They suggested either Life and Times of Michael K or Elizabeth Costello. I read Life and Times first and struggled with it. Next I read Elizabeth Costello which I loved. The third one was Waiting for the Barbarians which I also liked.

I wonder if reading Coetzee takes several bites to develop a taste. I guess, if asked, I would recommend starting withe Elizabeth Costello but would also be afraid that it might be bad advice. Maybe it is best to start with others so you can appreciate the next even more.

I have Disgrace on by tbr. I think I have heard good things about it.

I am liking Slow Man. It really is the sort of book I like. Our protagonist is older, single, struggling with a loss and feelings of anger.

I started with Foe, then Disgrace, and wasn’t impressed with either. But I liked Waiting for the Barbarians, and really liked Michael K. I was meh with Elizabeth Costello. I haven’t started this one yet.

Clearly, I have a mixed relationship with Coetzee’s books- there are times his writing feels condescending to the reader, and other times it feels genuine. He certainly is a talented writer.

Ok. I've just finished and posted my review. I think though, I will sleep on the questions before I jump in.

Well, I'm not sure that sleeping on it helped answer the questions but I'll try a few!

1. I think this is kind of an odd question. I think Paul is a very likely protagonist for a novel. He is irascible, not particularly self aware, and lonely (although he probably would deny that) - in my mind these qualities make for a very interesting main character. I do think that this novel would read very differently for someone of a different age group though. I am 57, and have no children (although am in a long term relationship) - so I suspect I had greater empathy for Paul (even though I can't see myself reacting to his situation in the same way). I can see how at 'our' age you could feel like your life had ended. I think Coetzee makes his life compelling by unfolding it very slowly and using Costello as a literary device. I did think, as I got further into the book, that if Costello wasn't part of the story it probably would be a lot less interesting.

2. This is a hard question for me to answer. I wonder 2 things - maybe the health care professionals were trying to push him too early to accept his new way of life (without time + care for his grief); and he seems like he is one of those people who make a decision and then stick with it (even if it is not the best decision).

3. I completely disagree with this outlook so it is hard to empathize and analyze...! Obviously this colors his interactions with the Marijana and the Jokics.

4. Costello's appearance really threw me for a loop. Since this is my first Coetzee I didn't know if he wrote magic realism (although I didn't think so). It wasn't until further along that I realized that this novel is metafiction. I have slightly mixed feelings about this - on the one hand I liked the novel and thought the device added a great deal to it, but on the other hand sometimes I found Costello annoying.

5. See above! Once I realized it is metafiction, I saw Costello as Coetzee's stand in. I don't think the story was already written, my sense was it was being written as it unfolded.

6. As a photographer you are a witness, yet always outside of the scene. I think that suited Paul's personality. His collection may be a stand in for a family.

7. I suspect this is a common occurrence. I think Paul was lonely and felt vulnerable. Marijana was professionally nice to him, which erases the messiness of real romantic relationships. Since Paul wasn't particularly 'in touch' with his own feelings he probably didn't like dealing with other people's. Of course, he shouldn't have blurted this out, although that is easy to say as the dispassionate reader. It made the professional relationship awkward and complicated. I think the Jokic family's perception of him changes over time from a client, to an oddball, to a bit of a joke (that they can take advantage of), to someone they feel a little sorry for.

Now that I've read it, I would like to add another question:

I'm curious what others thought about the events/ending in the last 2 chapters.

1. Paul is one of the invisible people in a society mostly ignored and alone, Coetzee makes him interesting through his forced interactions with others. It would also have been interesting to learn more of his back story.

2. I think this refusal is a very male thing as I recognise my husband in Paul. He has health problems that he refuses to accept instead he rails against them which in the end changes nothing on the other hand I have accepted my health issues and feel I am much happier. I also agree with Valerie that people need time to adjust to their new situation and for Paul this is a major life changing event which will take major adjustments in everyday life. I also agree that stubbornness plays a part.

3. Another childless reader here and like Valerie I disagree with this assessment but from a biological & evolutionary point of view looking at it coldly yes a deliberate childless life can be viewed as frivolous and selfish. I think Paul is shaken by this assessment and he starts to question his own worth, his response to this is to try and assert his influence on Marijana's family. He wants to have a family connection and he thinks money will buy it for him.

4. The way I read it was that Paul was initially an idea that Elizabeth had for a book and then he took on a life of his own outside of the story she wanted to write. Now although she knows a lot about him she is not omnificent and she is forced to wait for him to do something that she can write about, she tries to manipulate situations to steer the story but they don't work as expected.

5. I would say she is writing the story as she keeps mentioning that he needs to do something to give her closure so she can write his story and move on.

6. Photographers are like authors they are telling a story, they capture specific moments in time and place through his collection Paul is telling his own history of Australia.

7. I think Paul falls in love with Marijana because she treats him with compassion and seems to understand him. Yes he should have kept his feelings to himself Marijana is performing a job it is clear she doesn't have feelings for him so trying to force her hand with a declaration of love is wrong. With regard to how the family view him this is complicated as we get most of the story from his point of view we are presented with one view of the family but the ending turns that view on it's head. Basically he thinks they want his money but it turns out they may care more for him than he gave them credit for.

8. Paul needs to make a decision to do something worth writing about. Elizabeth will fade away because she will be able to write his story and he will stop haunting her.

9. I don't think Paul lives like a hero he would rather other people make the decisions while he goes along with them, he is not proactive and he is not acting selflessly.

10. I would say selfish he wants to help them to make himself feel less alone. It's also misguided as his help is not what they need, what they need is to work through things themselves.

11. Yes I think this was the right choice, he is finally standing up for himself. His life will either go on as before or he will make the decision to change and make something lasting.

12. There is a similar theme in The Poisonwood Bible where a character says basically everything happens for a reason but if you try and put it down to be punished for a sin you will drive yourself mad. I think the lesson Paul is learning from the accident is how to build a life anew after a life changing event.

I think the last 2 chapters serve to remind the reader that just because Paul is telling us how the other characters feel and act it doesn't mean that is actually what they feel and think, it turns the previous narrative on its head.

It is also a counterpoint to Elizabeth, Paul is a character that she can't control and Drago is a character that Paul can't control.

Book wrote: "I think the last 2 chapters serve to remind the reader that just because Paul is telling us how the other characters feel and act it doesn't mean that is actually what they feel and think, it turns..."

Yes, exactly - it turns it on it's head. I was/am undecided if Coetzee is playing with us as the reader.

I do like your analysis of the lack of control. Certainly both Paul + Elizabeth would like to have it!

11. I agree that this was the correct decision. I couldn't imagine him being happy in that situation and I think it would have been false to the character as Coetzee presented him to us.

1. In what ways is Paul—a sixty-year-old amputee with no wife and no children—an unlikely protagonist...

I think what makes Paul an 'unlikely protagonist' is the amount of effort he puts into fighting change. The fact that he is a slow man makes the story slow also. However, the full nature of the character Marijana, the introduction of the author Elizabeth Costello and the exacting writing style which is perfect for the tense interactions which never bloom into out and out confrontation made the book compelling to me.

2. The narrator says of Paul: “A golden opportunity...

It was irritating to me, the reader, that Paul was so irascible and would not work at moving forward. However, as a character it made him an interesting representative of an uncontrollably stubborn person who the author (Costello/Coetzee) are struggling with. By not accepting his fate, Paul can not accept any version of the future. It locks him into having no future because he can not envision himself with a missing leg. Costello wants him to do almost anything with passion rather than do nothing with self pity.

3. When Paul awakens in the hospital, the narrator tells us: “Frivolous is not a bad word ...

Paul, without making any attempt to change himself going forward (he has always been a cold person who never wins an argument), attempts to change the nature of his past life by trying to "adopt" in some sense Marijana's children and take care of Marijana and her family even though it is not something that they want.

4. How would you explain the appearance of Elizabeth Costello in Paul Rayment’s life?

One of the best things about the book is that when Costello shows up you instantly know that this is not going to be explained. I was never turning the pages to have Coetzee explain her presence to me. However, her place as the author (both the character of the author and the stand-in for Coetzee) is made very interesting because at no time does she really gain significant influence over this other character, Paul, who "came to her".

5. When Elizabeth first arrives in Paul’s flat, she recites a passage: “The blow catches him from the right, sharp and surprising and painful, like a bolt of electricity, lifting him up off the bicycle,” which is exactly how Slow Man begins. How would you explain this? Is she writing, or has she already written, the story of Paul’s life as it appears in Slow Man?

I don't think Coetzee wants us to know the answer to this question. She is simply the instigator of the plot, such as it is, in some way. She knows Paul as a character not as a person. She is not very sympathetic to him and Paul is not sympathetic to her. Costello does have some understanding of what she is doing there however, where Paul has no idea what she is doing in his life.

6. What is the significance of Paul’s having been a photographer and of his attachment to his archival collection?

The photographs capture the past and freeze it. He values their historical worth as representing a moment in history but also he seems to love them as art also. In particular, they are things of the past and not of the future. When Drago drags them into the future by using Photoshop to digitally doctor the images, Paul is appalled.

7. Why does Paul fall in love with Marijana? What consequences follow from the moment when he blurts out his love for her? Should he have kept such feelings to himself? How is Paul perceived by the rest of the Jokic family?

Costello would have us believe that although it was a stupid thing to have done, that once having done it, Paul should have gone farther. He should have "pushed" to the point of drama/conflict/living life rather than pitifully backing down and attempting to find some way of keeping her in his life.

8. Elizabeth tells Paul, “I say it again: this is your story, not mine. The moment you decide to take charge, I will fade away” (p. 100). What would it mean for Paul to “take charge”? Why would doing so make Elizabeth “fade away”?

In essence, this is the end of the book. He makes a decision that is definitive, takes charge, says "no" to her and that results in the end. It does not mean the end of the character who could go on living for years, but it does result in the end of the book. If Paul, as a character, had been able to sustain a story without Costello, Coetzee would not have had to introduce Costello.

9. “Become major,” Elizabeth tells Paul. “Live like a hero. That is what the classics teach us. Be a main character. Otherwise what is life for?” (p. 229). Does Paul follow this advice? He is the main character in Slow Man, after all, but does he live like a hero?

The Jokić's are the closest to living a heroic live but it is a life that most people would not see as particularly heroic. They have beliefs and they act on those beliefs. Costello believes that Paul has no strong beliefs, strong commitments, strong anything and therefore he can not be the main character in the book without her.

10. Is Paul’s attempt to “extend a protective hand” over the Jokic family misguided? Generous? Selfish? How honest is Paul about the motives for his protectiveness?

I think that it is was largely a selfish act but it did have a portion of generosity in it also. He wanted to care for them to give himself a place in their world.

11. Do you think Paul makes the right decision at the end of the novel in declining Elizabeth’s offer to go live with her? What do you imagine the rest of Paul’s life will be like?

Paul at least makes a clear definitive decision when he says no to Costello. He didn't want to live without love and being with Costello felt to him a surrender to living without love, even if that love was totally unrequited. However, it doesn't feel as if the character Paul will ever really change and that therefore his life will be dreary and constrained. The story does allow for Paul to change after the book ends and go on to live a more purposeful life but the fact that the book ends means that simply will not happen to the character the reader knows.

12. Paul tells Elizabeth: “With a little ingenuity, it seems to me, Mrs. Costello, one can torture a lesson out of the most haphazard sequence of events. Are you trying to tell me that God had some plan in mind when he struck me down on McGill Road and turned me into a hobbler” (p. 198)? Is there a lesson for Paul to learn from what has happened to him? What might that lesson be? Or is he right in suggesting that we “torture” such lessons out of random events and perhaps out of novels as well?

Yes. Human beings always draw lines between dots and group events to attempt to understand them. Novels are a classic way in which we edit events into stories that help us to give meaning to life. The character Paul should have learned a lesson about endings, the end of a part of his life, possibly even the very end of his life and how to move on. However, the actual accident would not have taught him that, only he could teach himself that after assessing the results of the accident.

The last two chapters were a great flip I thought, as we get a real sense of the Jokić characters and their motivations not just Paul's thoughts about them.

I am rather sorry that this is my first Coetzee as many of the reviewers seem to feel it isn't his strongest. Yet, it does make me want to read more.

Gail wrote: "1. In what ways is Paul—a sixty-year-old amputee with no wife and no children—an unlikely protagonist...

I think what makes Paul an 'unlikely protagonist' is the amount of effort he puts into figh..."

Well said, Gail!

I agree with you regarding this being the first Coetzee read. I guess that is the danger of letting the randomizer pick your/our reading order! :) I was able to pick up Disgrace at the same time as Slow Man (at the library book sale), but I'm thinking it might be worthwhile to start nearer to the beginning of his oeuvre.

Yes, it is funny but I agree with you about where to start reading. I own Disgrace also but think that should not be my next read of his.

Alright: with this one down I only have 1 Coetzee left (woooooo). I’ve given his books everything from 1 to 4 stars (there’s only 8 of the 722 books I’ve read for the list that I gave a 1 star review- and 2 of them are his so we have a complicated relationship lol). I’d call it a “meh or miss” relationship: and fortunately this one was a “meh” and not a “miss”. Possibly my second favorite of his after “In the Heart of the Country”.

To answer the questions:

1. Often the older, disabled, and unattached are not considered as worthwhile protagonists so he subverts those tropes. Coetzee uses an interpersonal drama that is largely artificially constructed by the unreliable narrator to make his story more compelling.

2. Paul misconstrues the idea of his “pride and dignity” with being humorless, self-important and serious, and unadaptable about his new disability. Everything that happens as a result of his reduced mobility and isolation essentially comes about as a result of this.

3. He essentially tries to take care of Marijana’s kids to compensate for this, and have a parasocial relationship with them as “his” family. I fundamentally disagree with this quote though: many people contribute meaningfully to society and future generations without having kids of their own.



4. It seems to suggest that his life is a construction of her imagination and this whole story is a piece of metafiction about the authorial process, and a story “getting a life of its own”. It’s a kind of cool premise, but less interesting due to the fact that I’ve definitely seen this presented before, even in earlier books, that I thought were much stronger. (“At Swim, Two Birds” immediately comes to mind). I think this accounts for question 5 as well.


6. I feel like it gets at his presence as an observer of life rather than a participator in it. Once again, he has a parasocial relationship with the lives of those in the pictures, compensating for his own.

7. Because she is kind to him as part of her job, and he over-estimates their intimacy. I honestly feel like it’s not much deeper than that. Him blurting out his love for her changes their whole dynamic and brings Elizabeth Costello into the picture because this should be a conventional point of dramatic change from a narrative perspective but he doesn’t essentially follow through on that front. He should have definitely kept it to himself, I would have found a male client doing that to me so uncomfortable in real life. He perceives that they have internal drama and machinations against him, but they really seem to just have kind but surface level feelings towards him.

8. He would have to live in a way that defies that expectation of her perceived narrative, so that he then “lives” outside of her original vision for him.
9. I would argue not. I think the point is that he lives a life that is a disappointing narrative in the conventional sense. It’s like the metafiction is trying to break the expectation of fiction.

10. Yes, just yes. I feel like there’s too many Coetzee protagonists like this: sad, serious, self-important men fueled by selfishness and narcissism, and over-estimating their importance to others.

11. I think “right” in this context is dependent of whether you are considering the angle of living up to his intended destiny as a satisfying story for Elizabeth, or having a good fulfilling everyman’s life from his perspective. Probably no on the first count, yes on the second.

12. He’s quite possibly right. Narratives are artificially constructed for meaning in a way life is not, so I think it’s less of an issue in doing so with novels. But, this does lead to this perspective being applied to real life, an idea I feel like this book was trying to push back at and combat.

Overall, I thought this book was fine. There are aspects of the metafiction set-up that were novel and interesting, even if it is not the most unique idea in of itself. The prose also just felt smug and impressed with itself on some level to me- I recurrent issue I have with Coetzee. It didn’t hate it though (unlike Disgrace and Youth), so that’s cool.

Amanda wrote: "Alright: with this one down I only have 1 Coetzee left (woooooo). I’ve given his books everything from 1 to 4 stars (there’s only 8 of the 722 books I’ve read for the list that I gave a 1 star revi..."

I like your analysis, particularly since you have other Coetzee novels under your belt. At least you didn't hate it.... ha, ha!

Valerie wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Alright: with this one down I only have 1 Coetzee left (woooooo). I’ve given his books everything from 1 to 4 stars (there’s only 8 of the 722 books I’ve read for the list that I gav..."

Thanks, Valerie! And I'm happy I didn't hate it too: I voted for this book as well lol. Mostly just to get that much closer to being done with Coetzee, but I'm glad that the book itself was fine.

1. I don't see Paul as an unlikely protagonist at all. In fact, I was rather enthralled with the beginning of the story. It became less compelling for me when Elizabeth Costello made her first appearance.
2. As others have pointed out he was a pig-headed man unable to adapt to change as regards a prosthesis, although he was keen to change his life to involve Marijana and then her family.
3. Paul had already bequeathed his photographic collection so I think the judgement was rather harsh. After all, with the planet in its current state it is much more unselfish to be childless. He only changes due to self-interest when he falls in love with Marijana.
4 & 5. I think that Elizabeth Costello is Coetzee, thinly disguised. So the thought of Paul came as an idea to Coetzee and when she quotes the beginning of the novel verbatim, it is because she/he wrote the words.
6. Paul is an onlooker, rather than a participant. His attachment to his collection is natural for any collector.
7. It is proximity and care. He appears not to be a person who forms relationships easily and therefore his clumsy proclamation is in character. I don't think he should have kept his feelings private. He does not see the family realistically until he visits them and discovers they are sympathetic.
8. I really have no idea what Coetzee is trying to convey other than the relationship between an author and a character is complex!
9. I think Paul's generosity is quite heroic, even if his motives are not. I think the advice is suspect - what if every person on earth tried to live the life of a hero? Chaos!
10. I think Paul is generous but careless about the results of his largess. His offer to live in a shed in the garden is not realistic.
11. This is complicated. If he is Elizabeth's creation then thinking about a life together is both inevitable and unrealistic.
12. There are always lessons in life for those who seek them, even characters in puzzling novels!

Pip wrote: "1. I don't see Paul as an unlikely protagonist at all. In fact, I was rather enthralled with the beginning of the story. It became less compelling for me when Elizabeth Costello made her first appe..."

I felt the same way, Pip. I was quite interested/invested in the character of Paul at the beginning. Costello/Coetzee created a distance.

Question 1: (finished last night). in this novel, Coetzee examines the relationship of author to character. Paul is simply not interesting. He has little passion. Even his hatred over lost of leg by driver is tempered. The author struggles with how to develop the character, wheat directions to send the character. What does the character know and not know.

Coetzee also explores "leaving a legacy". Paul has no child. He has this picture collection but really he is more enthralled with it than others. And with the modern times of producing legacy. Leaving this to the library may be hardly valuable when it can be posted on line.

2. Paul the character does represent people who struggle with loss and how they will move on in live. Paul rejects the prosthesis. He doesn't move on. He is stuck.

Does this character represent the author's struggle to develop a character that is stuck?

4. I thought that Coetzee was doing some experimenting with the experimental novel. Elizabeth Costello is a previous novel that he wrote. I read it and liked it and now it was too long between that book and this. I wish I had read them closer. Elizabeth Costello is a author and in this book she represents authors and their relationship with characters. Of course the author knows (omniscience) because they are writing the book. But they also struggle with what direction to go and sometimes have to backtrack and change directions. The act of writing is exhausting on the author and we see the wear and tear on EC. (I think). I am not a writer.

Here are some things I liked in this novel. I do think Coetzee the author has grown on me since the first book I read which I did not appreciate.

Pg 141 Four people in four corners being wasted like tramps in Beckett.
Being wasted by time. (Elizabeth Costello).
These young people who have been assigned to care for them know they have nothing left to give to the tribe and therefore do not count.
So young and yet so heartless? He cries to himself. How did I come to fall into their hands? Better for old to tend the old, the dying the dying?
No, but people do die of indifference to the future.
There is a sense that he is a passing character in the life of this Mariannas and everyone else are passing characters in his.
Our lies reveal as much about us as our truths.

I didn't fully understand why the sex scene with the blind lady was in the book. Any thoughts on that?

No, it seemed at first like a beginning to another relationship with a new character but then it ended. Also, I was not convinced that she was blind.

I wasn't convinced that she wasn't marijana and the author is saying something about Paul's interest is the visual and not the character of the woman.

Gail wrote: "No, it seemed at first like a beginning to another relationship with a new character but then it ended. Also, I was not convinced that she was blind."

That's funny, because I wasn't entirely convinced she was blind either.

Yes, that was an odd scene.

The ideas that come to mind....
-> perhaps Costello/Coetzee wanted to introduce a situation for potential intimacy to see how the story developed. However, as we know, that was a dead end
-> or maybe it was to (obliquely) have us think about the nature of passion or intimacy. The blind woman was supposed to be full of passion with nowhere to realize it (because of how she felt about herself and her situation). Paul was supposed to have felt lust when he saw her. Yet when they are together in his apartment there didn't seem to be any passion (on either part).
-> that last thought makes me think it was a commentary on not being aware of your emotions or being able to express them. Certainly, Paul is not a man who is 'in touch with this feelings'.

Valerie wrote: "Yes, that was an odd scene.

The ideas that come to mind....
-> perhaps Costello/Coetzee wanted to introduce a situation for potential intimacy to see how the story developed. However, as we know,..."

Those are all great points. I do think it is a part of the theme of authors relationship with character, that sometimes they start something and it is a dead end. It certainly was for Paul and Marianna.

I also was thinking about Paul as a character who loses his leg and doesn't want a prosthesis. Perhaps her represents a flawed character but maybe he represents a character that fails to be fully developed.

Valerie wrote: "Yes, that was an odd scene.

The ideas that come to mind....
-> perhaps Costello/Coetzee wanted to introduce a situation for potential intimacy to see how the story developed. However, as we know,..."

Those are all great points. I do think it is a part of the theme of authors relationship with character, that sometimes they start something and it is a dead end. It certainly was for Paul and Marianna.

I also was thinking about Paul as a character who loses his leg and doesn't want a prosthesis. Perhaps her represents a flawed character but maybe he represents a character that fails to be fully developed.

Kristel wrote: "I've read 3 books by the author and this will be my fourth. When I first started 1001 over in Shelfari. I asked the questions of others of where to start. They suggested either Life and Times of Mi..."

I hated Elizabeth Costello. Had I started with that one, I doubt I would have tackled the rest. I have read all of them but Master of Petersburg. Disgrace was my first. He isn't my favorite list author, but my top 3 are Disgrace, Life and Times of Michael K, and Waiting for the Barbarians.

Diane wrote: "Kristel wrote: "I've read 3 books by the author and this will be my fourth. When I first started 1001 over in Shelfari. I asked the questions of others of where to start. They suggested either Life..."

I liked Elizabeth Costello but I don't remember why. I would have to go back and check my notes/review.

Kristel wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kristel wrote: "I've read 3 books by the author and this will be my fourth. When I first started 1001 over in Shelfari. I asked the questions of others of where to start. They suggest..."

It was an unusual book. Kudos to Coetzee for creating something so unique. I didn't particularly like Elizabeth, though. I didn't like her in Slow Man, either.

Diane wrote: "Kristel wrote: "Diane wrote: "Kristel wrote: "I've read 3 books by the author and this will be my fourth. When I first started 1001 over in Shelfari. I asked the questions of others of where to sta..."

I finally looked back to see what it was about Costello I liked; here is my review -- author writes about an aging woman author. He covers topics of realism, African literature, animal rights, humanities, religion (Gods, God). These could be essays rather than a complete story but they are connected by the protagonist, Elizabeth, who is telling or thinking the essays. I found it interesting that this male author chose a woman to write about writing. I also learned that Coetzee, considered to be an author of South Africa, lives in Australia. Elizabeth Costello lives in Australia. This book examines African literature and whether African literature is different because the African tells the story from oral traditions. The animal rights section wasn't so good and as those that heard the essay were offended, it was offensive. The argument of humanity verses religion was most interesting. The author examines Catholic religion and humanity through a visit to African by Elizabeth as the guest of her sister, who is a Sister (nun). Mostly this book is about writing. It names many authors and works and Elizabeth is most famous for a book that she wrote about Marion Bloom, wife of Leopold Bloom, principal character of Ulysses by James Joyce.

I finished this one mid July. At the begging I was enjoying very much different issues raised by Coetzee: how one accepts a loss, loneliness, being without family and children etc. I loved Paul's affection for Marijana, because it seems to me to be predictable emotion in a situation like this. A lots of emphasis is put to the notion of care needed by the old people in general, and in particular in a situation like this, and I loved that part.
But when Elizabeth is introduced I just couldn't enjoy that much anymore. I also disliked introduction of the blind women and the Jokic family. Everything was a kind of mixed up and I finished reading with no particular liking for this book.

Tatjana wrote: "I finished this one mid July. At the begging I was enjoying very much different issues raised by Coetzee: how one accepts a loss, loneliness, being without family and children etc. I loved Paul's a..."

I agree. I also thought the part of the novel before Elizabeth was more compelling. However, equally, I don't think Coetzee intended to write a straightforward narrative!