There is an undeniable similarity between David Laurie and Lucifer throughout Disgrace. The reader is given a description of Lucifer in one of David Lurie's lectures at the University. Although we do not quite understand the similarities between the two during the lecture, by the end of the book the two are one in the same.
"'Lucifer,' he says. 'The angel hurled out of heaven'" (32) Just as Satan was hurled from heaven, David Lurie was hurled out of the University. "Note that we are not asked to condemn this being with the mad heart, this being with whom there is something constitutionally wrong. On the contrary, we are invited to understand and sympathize. But there is a limit to sympathy. For though he lives among us, he is not one of us." (33-34). David Laurie is himself an outsider in his society. No matter where he goes, it seems that people know of his sexual relationship with one of his former students. He seems to be separated from the people around him. "He is exactly what he calls himself : a thing, that is, a monster. Finally, Byron will suggest it, it will not be possible to love him, not in the deeper, more human sense of the word.He will be condemned to solitude." (34). In the end of the book, he ends up by himself, "condemned to solitude" like Lucifer.
Here is the trailer for the film version of Disgrace. They include a small part of Lurie's lecture on Lucifer. It gave me chills. I'm curious to see if any of you have a strong reaction to this part as well.
There is an excess of fire in this book as well. Just look at what he does while helping Bev. He puts the corpses of dead dogs into an incinerator. "It operates six days of the week, Monday to Saturday. On the seventh day it rests." This is obviously a biblical reference. At first, the incinerator works like God, taking six days to do what it needs to and then using one day to rest. However, once Lurie works there permanently, the incinerator is open all seven days. It loses its God-like quality. Lurie's job is almost identical to Lucifer's. He literally throws dead dogs into fire, just as Lucifer leads dead people into hell. Hell is described as a sea of fire in the Bible. David Lurie is like a Satan for dogs.
When he and Lucy are attacked by the three strange men they set David Lurie on fire. The image of him being on fire brings about the image of Lucifer in my mind. He also seemed to recover from being set on fire with very little damage. Perhaps he can withstand fire because he is so much like Lucifer?
There is also the topic of his attraction to younger women, much younger women. Has there not been a theme throughout literary history of devil-like characters being attracted to young women and children? A well-known example would be Bram Stoker's Dracula. The vampires in this book target young women and children. Both represent purity and innocence, and by violating these people, the vampires are committing a heinous crime. David Laurie also goes after young, child-like women.
Maybe this is why the novel is called Disgrace. David Lurie is the opposite of grace, which is a characteristic of God according to the Bible. He is the anti-grace. He is the devil.
"'Lucifer,' he says. 'The angel hurled out of heaven'" (32) Just as Satan was hurled from heaven, David Lurie was hurled out of the University. "Note that we are not asked to condemn this being with the mad heart, this being with whom there is something constitutionally wrong. On the contrary, we are invited to understand and sympathize. But there is a limit to sympathy. For though he lives among us, he is not one of us." (33-34). David Laurie is himself an outsider in his society. No matter where he goes, it seems that people know of his sexual relationship with one of his former students. He seems to be separated from the people around him. "He is exactly what he calls himself : a thing, that is, a monster. Finally, Byron will suggest it, it will not be possible to love him, not in the deeper, more human sense of the word.He will be condemned to solitude." (34). In the end of the book, he ends up by himself, "condemned to solitude" like Lucifer.
Here is the trailer for the film version of Disgrace. They include a small part of Lurie's lecture on Lucifer. It gave me chills. I'm curious to see if any of you have a strong reaction to this part as well.
There is an excess of fire in this book as well. Just look at what he does while helping Bev. He puts the corpses of dead dogs into an incinerator. "It operates six days of the week, Monday to Saturday. On the seventh day it rests." This is obviously a biblical reference. At first, the incinerator works like God, taking six days to do what it needs to and then using one day to rest. However, once Lurie works there permanently, the incinerator is open all seven days. It loses its God-like quality. Lurie's job is almost identical to Lucifer's. He literally throws dead dogs into fire, just as Lucifer leads dead people into hell. Hell is described as a sea of fire in the Bible. David Lurie is like a Satan for dogs.
When he and Lucy are attacked by the three strange men they set David Lurie on fire. The image of him being on fire brings about the image of Lucifer in my mind. He also seemed to recover from being set on fire with very little damage. Perhaps he can withstand fire because he is so much like Lucifer?
There is also the topic of his attraction to younger women, much younger women. Has there not been a theme throughout literary history of devil-like characters being attracted to young women and children? A well-known example would be Bram Stoker's Dracula. The vampires in this book target young women and children. Both represent purity and innocence, and by violating these people, the vampires are committing a heinous crime. David Laurie also goes after young, child-like women.
Maybe this is why the novel is called Disgrace. David Lurie is the opposite of grace, which is a characteristic of God according to the Bible. He is the anti-grace. He is the devil.
the parallels between Lurie and the traditional idea of Lucifer are certainly extensive. There seems to be a pattern in the novel of both the world (and occasionally the narration) portraying Lurie as evil. What makes this unique is the first person narrative--a pattern which naturally inclines the protagonist to be likeable, since no man really thinks of themselves as 'evil'. It creates a moral grey area in the novel that requires the reader to make their own judgments concerning Lurie's actions
ReplyDeleteWhile I was reading this book I felt very awkward, because I wasn't sure exactly how I was supposed to feel about Lurie and how the author wanted the reader to view him. Usually there is a clear line between who we are supposed to view as the "good" characters and the "bad" characters, but Lurie weaved between the two and I could never draw a clear understanding of him. I suppose that's how it is in the real world though, each person has good qualities and bad qualities so nobody stays in just one category.
ReplyDeleteGood thinking Emily and Greg! The next step would be to pinpoint exactly the ways (by finding quotes) in which Coetzee draws our attention to the moral ambiguities. It is obvious that he does not excuse or justify Lurie in anyway, then how does he do it?
ReplyDeleteSince you bring up Lucifer, it is also worth noting that the Romantics (the poets that Lurie teaches) viewed Lucifer not exactly as the Satanic character that poets before them (Milton for instance) did but as a character that is "usurped upon". In the quote that you have used there is a call to understand Lucifer. From Bimala onwards we have a met a number of flawed characters, perhaps none as much as Lurie. So a good question to ask would be -- why do writers create these troubled and troubling characters? What are we to get out of it?
ReplyDeleteHere is one example I found of his moral flip-flopping, let me know if you agree or disagree.
ReplyDelete“He sees himself in the girls flat, in her bedroom, with the rain pouring down outside and the heater in the corner giving off a smell of paraffin, kneeling over her, peeling off her clothes, while her arms flop like the arms of a dead person. I was a servant of Eros..." (89)
The way he seems to take pleasure in the fact that her arms look like a dead person’s is disturbing. Does he want her to be powerless, to not have the ability to move or leave so he can do whatever he wants to her? This makes the reader see him in a negative, perverted light. Then, he goes on to say he was a servant of Eros, a Greek god of love. Suddenly his desires become romanticized, and the reader second-guesses his intentions. After reading this package, I feel like Lurie is straddling the line between good and evil. I’m going to lean more towards evil in this example though…
I didn't really notice until the second time I went over Lurie's lecture on "Lara" that he seemed to sympathize with Lucifer, and describe him as someone misunderstood. I read over it too quickly the first time, not realizing its significance. He says, "Note that we are not asked to condemn this being with the mad heart, this being with whom there is something constitutionally wrong. On the contrary, we are invited to understand and sympathize." (33). I'm going to spend some time thinking about why writers use these kinds of characters, like you said Professor.
ReplyDeleteThe example that you picked certainly shows that Coetzee has no intention for us to be confused about what is happening here. His being "servant of Eros" comes up in the inquiry too, what does the committee have to say?
ReplyDeleteBut, let me rephrase my question: What makes you say that Lurie is woven with good and bad? Can find a quote that gives us a more complex insight into Lurie?
I think you made some really interesting parallels between Lurie and Lucifer, and while most of them seem accurate, I must disagree with your opinion that Lurie was like a Satan for the dogs. On the contrary, I believe he was more of a Michael, a carrier of the souls. If Bev Shaw is the archangel Gabriel, the angel of death, Lurie if Michael, who escorts the souls to the other side. Lurie doesn't throw the dogs in the fire out of hatred or spite, rather he places them in as a sign of respect. "He saves the honour of the corpses because there is no one else stupid enough to do it" (p. 146). Satan is cold and calculating, and very very intelligent, complete contradiction to that description of Lurie. Also, a fire may be symbolic of hell, but it is also a way to release the souls of the departed from their earthly prisons (think Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Mans Chest or even The Home and the World's funeral pyre). Lurie is trying to aid Bev's mission to relieve the dogs in the best way he knows how. Lucifer cares about nothing, unlike Lurie.
ReplyDeleteExcellent response Emily. Well done.
ReplyDeleteEmily, you said that "Lucifer cares about nothing", but that's why I found it so interesting that David Lurie might represent a Satan-like person. Satan is viewed as the "bad guy" of the Christian faith, and therefor people are always speaking against him...very rarely do we hear a narrative int he voice of Satan. However, David Lurie is the "bad guy" (remember how everyone views his scandalous relationship and his immorality), yet the book is written in his perspective. Maybe I went a little far in my comparison, but I definitely believe that this book was supposed to be written in the perspective of someone we would normally dislike in society, someone who fell from grace (arguably God's grace)and is now suffering the consequences.
ReplyDelete