For the most part, Coetzee's novel is great at attempting to understand the Australian novelist in a moment of globalization. Coetzee structures his novel as a series of lectures, each detailing an aged writer's increasing non-relevance to an English Department that is becoming more and more formulaic. The last chapter and the postscript were abit of a mystery to me. It seems that Coetzee sometimes wants to throw in a little postmodern sensibility to his novels even when such a disposition doesn't really belong. I found Coetzee's rewriting of Kafka's _The Trial_ very interesting, especially as it characterized the literary intellectual as--mostly--ineffectual in Kafka's world of judgment and purgatorial labor. I just don't see how it relates to the rest of the novel. Furthermore, the postscript--supposedly written to Francis Bacon by an Elizabeth C., pleading to Bacon to help her husband who is suffering from an overabundance of allegorization--felt a little disjointed as well. I understand the thematic relationships with the rest of the novel, I just felt discombobulated at the end of the novel and I still don't understand how that feeling contributes to the workings of the novel.

JM Coetzee has been dazzling the world at large with his literary genius since 1982. JM Coetzee has been baffling me with his books since last year when i first started reading them. The bafflement continues with Elizabeth Costello. Now the literary world says that all sorts of clever things are happening in this book - philosophy, re-engaging with great modern texts on a different level and also the debate in each chapter of a contentious modern issues including animal rights, sexual identity, death and old age and conflict.

Right, well that's all good. But all i could think was
BEHOLD THE METATRON
Because Elizabeth Costello is, to all intents and purposes the authorial metatron. A direct mouth piece for the author, giving voice to 6 previously published essays written by Coetzee and now presented in Elizabeth Costello in one handy package.

My favourite metatron is obviously Alan Rickman in the film Dogma and no other will pass muster. And imagining Elizabeth Costello with Alan Rickmans face simply did not work. Unique and interesting as this was, it did not do a great job of holding my attention although ultimately I probably just under appreciated the genius which means this review will out me for the literary simpleton I really am.

“İnsanın sanat yaşamı, şematik olarak iki, belki de üç evre olarak düşünülebilir. Birinci evrede büyük bir soruyla karşılaşırsın veya o soruyu kendin ortaya atarsın. İkinci evreyi o soruyu cevaplamakla geçirirsin. Ve sonra, yeterince uzun yaşarsan o sorunun sana sıkıcı geleceği ve başka konulara ilgi duyacağın üçüncü evre gelir.”

J.M. Coetzee / ‘Burada ve Şimdi

Coetzee, edebiyat çevresiyle ve yönetimle yaşadığı çatışmaların ardından ülkesini terk edip yeni bşr kıtaya yerleştiği bir dönemde yazmış bu romanı. Farklı sorular sormaya başlamış ama bence bildik hassasiyetleri çerçevesinde. Gerçekçilik konferansı ilk bölümün ismi. Ve kurmaca ile gerçeklik köprüsünde (başlamak diye bir şey var mıdır?) salınarak romancısından gerçekçilik üzerine bir konferans dinliyoruz. Seçilen metin Kafka'nın Akademiye Bir Rapor isimli öyküsü. Gerçekçilik üzerinden bu klasik metinle kendi sorularına dönüyor.
Devletler düzeyindeki sömürgecilik meselesini insanlarla hayvanlar arasına getirip "akıl/bilinç" sahibi olmak bize akıl bilinç sahibi olmadıklarını iddia ettiğimiz canlılar üzerinde hangi hakları veriyor ya da veriyor mu sorusuyla bambaşka bir platforma taşıyor. Romanın geleceği isimli konferansında hem geçmiş ve gelecek kavramlarının kurgusallığını hem de edebiyat dünyasının çelişkilerini romanın bizzat kendisinin kolonyal yönünün etkilerini sorguluyor. Tanrılarla insanlar arasındaki ilişkilenmeyi sonluluk sonsuzluk farkının arzu üzerindeki etkisi üzerinden Psike/Eros üzerinden şiirlerle şairlerle edebiyatla felsefeyle konuşurken lafı Amerika'ya getiriveriyor. Afrika'ya kız kardeşini ziyaretinde misyonerliği, dinin insani bilimlerle etkileşimini karşılaştırmalı tartışıyor. İnancın dayatıcı zorlayıcı yanının karşısına insanlığı koyuyor ama acının acı çeken insanı anlamayıp kendi sanat anlayışını bilgisini kültürünü dayatan emperyalleri de romanından eksik bırakmıyor. Coetzee'nin bu romanı beni epey bir süre daha meşgul edip yeni okumalara, meraklara yöneltecek. Coetzee yine silkeliyor etik/inanç gerçeklik/kurmaca, iyilik/kötülük...peşini bırakmıyor, soruyor, düşünüyor, konuşuyor, linç edileceğini bilse de rahatsızlık vereceğini bilerek düşünmeye hissetmeye zorluyor. Romanda çok fazla düşünce vardı, bir romanda sindirmeyi hissetmeyi zorlayacak denli çoktu.
Kafka için Costello'ya söylettiği:
"Kafka bizim uyuyakaldığımız boşluklarda uyanık kalmasını bilmiştir. Kafka'nın yeri işte burası."

İlk bölümdeki romanın yazılma bir karakterin yaratılma anına şahitlik ettiğimiz, gerçekliğine mesafelendiğimiz E.Costello'ya Coetzee'nin gerçeklikte sunduğu konferanslarda romanlarında erkek kahramanının içine bir kadın olaraknasıl yerleşebildiğini soruluyor... Bizde de kadın mı bu konferansları veren yoksa Coetzee mi sorusu uyanıyor.
Salman Rushdie'nin davet edildiği ancak daha sonra güvenlik gerekçesiyle davetin iptal edildiği bir etkinlikte Nadine Godimer ile karşılıklı gelmiş. Zehir zemberek bir konuşma yapmış. Bu romanda bu olayı konferans konusu da dahil çok anıştıran bir bölüm var.
Bu arada tüm bu kurmaca/gerçeklik, düşünce/kurmaca halleri arasında salınırken Agos'ta Coetzee üzerine yazılmış bir yazıda Coetzee'nin etkilendiği yazarlar arasında Elizabeth Costello'yu görmek çok hoştu:))
Son bölümde inanç, kurmaca yazarlık meselelerini tartışırken kurbağalardan söz ettiği enfes bölümünse ülkemizde bir kitaba esin ve isim kaynağı olduğunu yeni öğrendim. (Kurbağalara İnanıyorum)
Son olarak üçyüz yıl arayla Bacon'a yazılan mektuplarda yaratıcılık ve yazma tutkusunun bulaşıcılığı üstüne yazılanlar ise yine kurmaca/gerçek ilişkisi çerçevesinde Bacon'ın (doğa, insan ilişkileri üzerine birçok düşüncesinin yanı sıra ) şu sözünü anımsattı:

"God has, in fact, written two books, not just one. Of course, we are all familiar with the first book he wrote, namely Scripture. But he has written a second book called creation."
Sir Francis Bacon

hello, it's me Helena :) I am temporarily done with higher education and back on my binge reading bullshit!

my review: frustrating. this is a questions book and i am an answers type girl. really good though. it's good that i am reading Coetzee cause now i can tell people i read Coetzee and lord it over them that i know how to pronounce that word. my quest to be the best continues

The lecture as a species of the novel? And this academic invasion works? I've read two novels of this kind. One was this novel by J. M. Coetzee, constructed out of its novelist character's lectures which were, in large part, transcribed verbatim in the text. The other was Never Any End to Paris by Enrique Vila-Matas

Some sections of Elizabeth Costello's lectures were paraphrased, other "extraneous" writings or events in the book were merely glossed over, dismissed with a stylistic flourish. Here's the omniscient narrator, right before Elizabeth Costello's delivering a "lesson" on the subject of realism.

   The presentation scene itself we skip. It is not a good idea to interrupt the narrative too often, since storytelling works by lulling the reader or listener into a dreamlike state in which the time and space of the real world fade away, superseded by the time and space of the fiction. Breaking into the dream draws attention to the constructedness of the story, and plays havoc with the realist illusion. However, unless certain scenes are skipped over we will be here all afternoon. The skips are not part of the text, they are part of the performance.

This was from the first lecture, entitled "What is Realism?" It already pointed to the lecture novel as a form of performance. The omission of supposedly insufferable parts was the rule ("There is a scene in the restaurant, mainly dialogue, which we will skip.") Skip, skip, skip. The reader was delivered from unnecessary scenes. He should be thankful for this consideration on the part of the narrator. And Costello, for her forthright behavior, despite her unstable and opinionated nature. And Coetzee, for keeping everything to the interesting minimum.

But skipping ahead to the third lecture, a two-part talk on "The Lives of Animals", the novelist Costello was up to some provocative argumentation. (This double lecture first appeared as a self-contained book, with commentaries from four scholars, in 1999. I read an edition of this lecture that was without the commentaries.) In her argument against animal cruelty (or, in Coetzee's argument against animal cruelty, via fiction), Costello brought in some serious comparison.

   Let me say it openly: we are surrounded by an enterprise of degradation, cruelty and killing which rivals anything that the Third Reich was capable of, indeed dwarfs it, in that ours is an enterprise without end, self-regenerating, bringing rabbits, rats, poultry, live-stock ceaselessly into the world for the purpose of killing them.

Despite the tone, the speech had room for self-deprecation. She basically spoke her mind because such "philosophical language", which at the same time was literary language, was "available" to her. And so she resorted to it:

But the fact is, if you had wanted someone to come here and discriminate for you between mortal and immortal souls, or between rights and duties, you would have called in a philosopher, not a person whose sole claim to your attention is to have written stories about made-up people.

She basically defined the surface work of a novelist. Perhaps the great quality of Coetzee, and that of Costello, as a writer is sympathy. Costello later spoke of the deeper, human, role the novelist could embody.

There is no limit to the extent to which we can think ourselves into the being of another. There are no bounds to the sympathetic imagination. If you want proof, consider the following. Some years ago I wrote a book called The House on Eccles Street. To write that book I had to think my way into the existence of Marion Bloom. Either I succeeded or I did not. If I did not, I cannot imagine why you invited me here today. In any event, the point is, Marion Bloom never existed. Marion Bloom was a figment of James Joyce's imagination. If I can think my way into the existence of a being who has never existed, then I can think my way into the existence of a bat or a chimpanzee or an oyster, any being with whom I share the substrate of life.   

Skirting around (and yes, skipping) the main argument of Costello about animals, the fact is, The House on Eccles Street never existed. "Costello's Marion Bloom" never existed. It was a figment of Costello's imagination. Creating the persona of Costello in this novel of lectures probably originated from the novelist's need to put some distance between his views and that of the radical ones of his protagonist. He was always examining the controversial contents of his character's speech--usually through Costello's detractors and even her own self-examination--even if he obviously shared and believed in them. Through a fictional persona he produced and structured a layer of inquiry wherein the novelist adopted the very fictional methods of his character, and so demonstrated the capacity of fiction to augment the imagination and enlarge the spirit.

Costello, as character, was both likeable and unlikeable. Mostly she was unlikeable. But her intelligent and realistic representation was more than enough for her vitality of ideas and sympathetic imagination to leap off the page. To skip from fictional design and enter the reader's universe of ideas.




(first posted in different form in my blog)

يقول كويتزي في الفصل الأول من هذه الرواية على لسان احدى الشخصيات ان الواقعية تعني ان الافكار لا وجود مستقل لها، وان وجودها يكون من خلال المحسوس: الشخصيات، الاحداث، الحوارات.

هذه الرواية، انما تتخذ شكل الرواية ظاهرا، وهي في حقيقتها نقاشات جدلية تطرح (من خلال الشخصيات، الحوارات، ووهم الحدث) اسئلة ومواضيع متنوعة مثل الواقعية في الرواية، اصل الرواية وعلاقتها بالشفاهة او المحكي، الدفاع عن حق الحيوان في الحياة، أصل الشر وان كان يحق ويجب على الكاتب الامتناع عن اخراج مارد الافكار الشريرة من قمقمه وعرضه في كتاب، وافكار اخرى. يقوم كويتزي بعرض هذه الافكار ضمن سياق قصصي حيث هناك الشخصية الكاتبة كوستيلو المليئة بالاسئلة، وهناك شخصيات اخرى تكون في المواجهة مع اليزابيث لتمتلأ الروايات بحوارات جدلية، وتبرز مهارته بعرض الرأي ونقيضه (للطرفين الخصمين) بذات القوة والبراعة، حتى أنك لا تستطيع أن تجزم أي الآراء المتعارضة هو لكويتزي ذاته. وبالإضافة، فإن جزء كبيرا من هذه الحوارات الجدلية هو بين كوستيلو ونفسها بالفعل، جدالاتها مع شكوكها وافكارها الداخلية.

اليزابيث كوستيلو الشخصية الرئيسة، هي روائية استرالية، تذهب في جولات ولقاءات لتلقي بأشخاص وتلقي كلمات حول الكتابة والرواية. وهي أيضا شخصية مليئة بالشك والأسئلة. أنها تظهر في البداية واثقة من أفكارها، لكنها حالما تضعها موضع السؤال، حالما تبدأ بنقاشها وعرضها يداهمها الشك، وتنكشف ارض اللايقين الهشة تحت قدميها، تنتهي مزعزعة تحت وطأة السؤال.

أظن كويتزي لا يرمي لطرح اجابات في هذه "الدروس" كما يسميها، بقدر ما يرمي الى طرح الاسئلة وترك المجال للقاريء لتشكيل رأيه الخاص حول هذه المواضيع.

وهو باختياره هذه الشكل الغريب لرواية (جدالات فكرية متنكرة في سياق قصصي) يضع بصمة ابداعية جديدة.

تنقسم الرواية الى فصول (يعنونها دروس) وكل فصل منها يشكل وحدة مستقلة حتى أنه يمكن القول تقريبا أن بوسعك البدء بالقراءة من أي فصل، ما يجمع بينها هو الشخصية الرئيسية إليزابيث. لكني مع ذلك وجدت ان كويتزي قد خلق بين هذه الفصول رابط حين جعل من الفصل الأول ما يشبه تفسيرا للعبة (الجدل من خلال السرد) والفصل الأخير الذي يطرح سؤال (هل يجب على الكاتب أن يؤمن بشيء ما) تفسيرا لكل الصراعات الفكرية والشك الذي تمتلأ به إليزابيث.

أعجبتني بعض الفصول جدا (الواقعية، مشكلة الشر، على البوابة أو سؤال الإيمان)، ولم أستطع التعاط مع بعضها الآخر، وهذا سبب التقييم بأربع نجمات.

استطراد:

الحاشية تضيف معنى اضافي لكل هذه الدروس. تصنع دائرة تربط البداية بالنهاية. كوستيلو كتبت رواية كانت سببا في شهرتها (منزل في شارع اكليز) حيث اخذت شخصية ثانوية من رواية (يوليسيوس) لجويس (مولي بلوم) واعطتها الدور الرئيس. يفعل كويتزي شيئا مشابها في الحاشية، يأخذ (اليزابيث ك) زوجة لورد كوندوس، من نص متخيل للكاتب النمساوي (هوفمانستال) ويمنحها صوتا في الحاشية، لكني اتساءل ان كان منحها اكثر من ذلك، عبر اليزابيث كوستيلو.

Į senjorų amžių perkopusi garsi rašytoją, visiškai išsisėmusi, išsikvėpusi ir sakyčiau gerokai žengtelėjusi snobizmo linkme, iš paskutiniųjų bandanti atrasti kažką tokio kas sujaudintų, o galbūt ir uždegtų tą bebaigiantį užgesti gyvenimo aukurą. Vis dar bandanti nustebinti savo genialumu, tačiau atsitrenkianti į sustabarėjimo sieną, tad tenka pripažinti, kad jaunystėje parašytų darbų šlovės taip ir “neperspjaus”.

Ji važinėja po konferencijas ir gvildena labai gajas bei opias šių dienų problemas – santuoka kaip kalėjimas, moters išlaisvinimo aspektas, vyro filosofinis požiūris į moterį/žmoną, realizmas, humanizmas ir dar daug daug visko.

Įdomus pastebėjimas, jog skaitant nuolat kirba mintis (kaip ir skaitant “Nešlovė”) jog pagrindinė veikėja Elizabeta Kostelo – tai pats autorius rašantis apie save, tai jo paties alter ego, nes daug gyvenimiškų faktų atitinka (ir ne tik tai).

Labai intriguojantis aspektas, jog autorius pagrindine veikėja pasirenka moterį rašytoją, kuri diskutuoja tema ar lengva moteriai “įsikūnyti” į vyrą rašant knygas. Toks įdomus momentas kai žinai, jog tai yra atvirkštinis atvejis.

Coetzee nepabėga ir nuo savo Afrikietiškų šaknų (gimęs jis pietų Afrikoje). Kas tarsi dar viena akivaizdi nuorodą į alter ego.
Daug kalbama apie literatūrą, rašymą bei paliečiama ir tarsi įtraukiama į pokalbį nemažai kitų autorių. Man labai patiko cituojamas Polas Zumtoras (citata mano bloge).

Tikrai labai intriguoja, nes autorius kalba apie literatūrą iš įvairių prizmių – kaip afrikiečių bei europiečių susidūrimas, pati teksto atsiradimo priežastis ir vystymasis, ir t.t. tikrai įdomu stebėti jo išvedžiojimus ir tarsi vis lauki naujo skyriaus, kur autorius pakvies į sceną naują “šnekėtoją” pasiųlysiantį naują tos pačios temos požiūrį.

Žinoma, nebūtų Coetzee jei neiškeltų gyvūnų temos. Jam tai viena aktualiausių temų, tad būtų keista, jei apie tai nebūtų kalbama.
Diskutuojama ir blogio, esminio blogio tema, bei kaip jis veikia ne tik tikrovę, bet ir literatūrą, kaip paliečia skaitytojus ir tuo labiau pačius rašytojus.


Iš dalies Coetzee šia knyga pagrindžia savo atsiskyrimą ir asketišką gyvenimo būdą, bei nenorą dalyvauti visuotinai pripažintuose renginiuose, tokiuose kaip apdovanojimai (jis pats du kartus nevyko atsiimti Man Booker prize apdovabojimų). Susidaro vaizdas, jog autorius sudėjo visą save į šią pagyvenusią rašytoją.
Na ir pabaigai. Knyga tokia turtinga savo idėjomis, jog rodosi nėra nei vieno nereikalingo ar beprasmio sakinio. O paliečiama tiek temų, jog nepaminėjau nei pusės.
Man Coetzee labai imponuoja ir neslepiu, jog jis mano vienas mėgstamiausių autorių, tad yra jo knygų, kurias drąsiai siūlau ir kitiems, bet šį kart pasakysiu taip – jei jums neaktualu kaip Kafka susijęs su realizmu, tai geriau nesirinkti šios knygos.

Elizabeth Costello se define como "soy una escritora, vendo ficciones. Solo mantengo creencias de forma provisional: las creencias fijas serias un obstáculo para mi".
Esta novela se divide en 8 capítulos en los que se plantean problemáticas profundas (en general a través de conferencias) en las que la protagonista se dice y se desdice de manera constante.
Este libro ahonda en las contradicciones personales y en la dificultad de defender ideas puramente racionales alejándonos de las experiencias y los afectos.
Tengo sentimientos encontrados con este libro, me hubiese gustado que el autor ahondara en la relación de Elizabeth con su hijo, su hermano y otros personajes de la novela y al mismo tiempo me encantó como Coetzee permite empatizar con Elizabeth, tanto así que muchas veces sentí en primera persona la vergüenza o incomodidad que ella experimenta.

This was a brilliant surprise. I've managed to hide myself under a rock, the last decade or so, and generally haven't attended the 'big' and 'famous' writers. Tim recommended it because he laughed at how critical the narrator, Costello, is of generally accepted standards of literary discourse and the general zeitgeist of the humanities. I confess to laughing with pleasure, too, because Coetzee articulates through Costello some of the criticisms I've expressed about the intellectual state of university schooling.

There are some delightful ironies, such as when Costello's sister is awarded an honorary degree in the humanities, and articulates the history and evolution of the study of the humanities as being the study of anything but 'humans'. Coetzee suggests that the rational pursuit of finding the root of being in reason was ill founded. He does this very cleverly, from a nun who made the reasoned argument that the humanities have failed humanity:

'Eilizabeth,' Blanche (is there something new in her tone, something softer, or is she just imagining it?), 'remember it is their gospel, their Christ. It is what they made of him, they, the ordinary people. Out of love. And not just in Africa... Ordinary people do not want the Greeks. They do not want the realm of pure forms. They do not want marble statues. They want someone who suffers like them. Like them and for them.'

Jesus. The Greeks. It is not what she expected, not what she wanted, not at this last minute when they are saying their goodbye for perhaps the last time. Something unrelenting about Blanche. Unto death. She should have learned her lesson. Sisters never let go of each other. Unlike men, who let go all too easily. Locked to the end in Blanche's embrace.

'So: Thou has triumphed, O pale Galilean,' she says, not trying to hide her bitterness in her voice. 'Is that what you want to hear me say, Blanche?'

'More or less. You backed a loser, my dear. If you had put your money on a different Greek you might still have stood a chance. Orpheus instead of Apollo. The ecstatic instead of the rational. Someone who changes form, changes colour, according to his surroundings. Someone who can die but then come back. A chameleon. A phoenix. Someone who appeals to women. Because it is women who live closest to the ground. Someone who moves among the people, whom they can touch — put their hand into the side of, feel the wound, smell the blood. But you didn't, and you lost. You went for the wrong Greeks, Elizabeth.'

From the acknowledgements, it seems this book has been pieced or patched together from a series of items written at different times, and perhaps for different purposes. This may have been it's weakest element, as the voice changes in rather unusual ways as the book progresses. It creates a curious reading tension, which I found complemented the arc of the tales very well, but which may be off-putting to some.

Also, for those who are not to enamoured of philosophical arguments couched in a novel-like form, this will likely not be the book for you. But the philosophy and argument I found engaging and challenging and, above all, fun, despite Costello being rather obnoxious character.

To the 'right' reader this is highly recommended. But to the wrong one, I suspect it will barely eke out a single star. All I can say is 'Thank you, Tim, for your recommendation!' I have subsequently purchased his Booker winning Disgrace and added yet another book to my growing reading list.

Let me just say this: few other authors I've read force the various modes of nonfiction--interviews in Summertime, essays in Diary of a Bad Year, lectures (formal addresses) in this one--to fit into the mold of fiction quite as effectively as JM Coetzee. Fiction is pretty much whatever he declares it to be, and who am I to object?

In Elizabeth Costello it results in something slightly more abstract, more academic, than the other Coetzee books I have read. There isn't so much a plot as Scenario A, Scenario B etc. into which Elizabeth Costello is placed and presented with Topic X, Y, Z, out of which she then has to talk herself, fumblingly expounding views she (like Señor C in Diary) may or may not share with her creator. Elizabeth Costello is anything but memorable when viewed through the eyes of her son, but all this changes in the final third of the book, culminating in a wholly unexpected (but not unusual for Coetzee) ending. Something straight out of Angels in America, with a postscript just cryptic enough to be annoying.

For that, finally, is all it means to be alive: to be able to die.

هذه الرواية صادمة من حيث الشكل الكتابي والبنائي، ومن ناحية أخرى، فهي مفخخة بالمساجلات والجدل والمناظرات التي تدور في أروقة ومحافل المثقفين والأكاديميين والدارسين الذين تحل " إليزابيث كستلو " ضيفة عليهم.

إذا كنت تريد قراءة رواية مكونة من أحداث وتصاعد درامي وحبكة، بحسب البناء التقليدي والمعروف عالميا، فهذه الرواية ليست لك، إذا قررت أن تقرأها .. قرر أن تكون أكثر تسامحا مع " ميوعة الشكل الكتابي " و أيضاً، استعد لأن " تدوخ " كثيرا في غيبة المناظرات الموشومة على صفحاتها، منذ أفكار الروائية عن الواقعية واللاهوت وانتهاء بحقوق الحيوان والهولوكوست!

باختصار، هذه الرواية ذهنية وفكرية بنسبة كبيرة، وليس ثمة ما يحدث، باستثناء الحرارة التي تحس بها في وجنتيك وأنت تتابع المناظرات وتحلل كل عبارة مفخخة يضعها كوتزي قصداً في النص، لإثارة وعيك، أو ربما لإثارة غيظك. الرواية تخبر الشيء الكثير عن عبقرية كاتبها وإمكانياته الهائلة، وقد كانت مفاجأة سعيدة بالنسبة لي بعد قراءة " في انتظار البرابرة " و " خزي " و أيضاً " أيام الصبا " ..

لماذا ثلاث نجمات؟ أولا، لأن الترجمة لم تكن مريحة في كثير من المواطن، وثانياً، لأن بعض الفصول كانت صعبة وتجريدية إلى درجة أنني لم أستلذ بقراءتها كما ينبغي.

"Credo nell'insopprimibile spirito umano. [...] Credo che l'umanità sia una cosa sola. Tutti quanti sembrano esserne convinti, sembrano crederci. Perfino lei ci crede, di tanto in tanto, quando è dell'umore giusto."

Per chiunque si sia chiesto perché Coetzee è un premio Nobel, esiste questo libro.
Era da molto tempo che non mi capitava tra le mani un libro che richiedesse la mia totale attenzione; ma sin dalle prime righe mi sono resa conto che le scarse 200 pagine di Elizabeth Costello non dicono la verità; è un libro impegnativo, non vi mentirò. Ha preso tanto del mio tempo e tutta la mia concentrazione, ma se lo è meritato.

Elizabeth Costello è una scrittrice australiana oramai in età avanzata; con le sue convinzioni ed il proprio approccio al mondo e all'altro, che vanno cristallizzandosi man mano che l'età avanza. Coetzee apre sei finestre - i capitoli hanno il nome di Lezioni - sulla sua personalità, portandoci in sei differenti occasioni nelle quali è richiesto un intervento da parte dell'autrice - un convegno, piuttosto che una conferenza su una nave da crociera - su determinati topics.
Si affronta il problema del realismo nella letteratura, della situazione del romanzo in Africa, della reale consistenza del Male, e tutta una serie di argomenti che fungono da punti nodali non solo della personalità di Elizabeth, ma inevitabilmente anche di Coetzee, che non si nasconde dietro ad un dito.
Ci sarebbero mille cose di cui parlare: lo stile poetico di Coetzee, l'assoluta attenzione che il testo richiede, le idee (alcune condivisibili, altre meno, come è giusto che sia) a volte marmoree, altre fumose di Elizabeth, la capacità di Coetzee di descrivere l'ambiente in un rigo, i continui omaggi letterari, le situazioni di meta-romanzo.. Ma è tutto relativamente importante.
Ciò che è importante è il valore letterario intrinseco di questo "romanzo", che esiste in sé, al di là della poesia, dello stile e delle idee.

Più che leggo, più che mi rendo conto che i libri che mi toccano veramente sono quelli in cui l'autore riversa se stesso senza volersi nascondere; perché penso che il farlo richieda un coraggio fuori dal comune, e perché chi lo fa ha davvero qualcosa da dire.