The view that David Lurie is "not a bad man but not a good man either" is a reduction of a provocative character. Disgrace explores fascinating political issues ranging from post-apartheid South Africa to moral paternalism, and David's placement within the ambiguous confines of this context makes him difficult to interpret. Critics condemned Coetzee for escalating racial conflict by depicting the violent rape of a white woman by black Africans in the sensitive political climate of late apartheid. Such reactions to the publication of the novel illustrate the fundamental issues addressed by Coetzee: the difficulty of justifying a moral position in a postcolonial society. However, Coetzee places "his characters in extreme situations that force them to explore what it means to be human", which gives David more substance than the political context of South Africa. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay David seems “bad” from the start because “ninety minutes a week in the company of a woman is enough to make him make you happy,” and he shows a lack of emotional sensitivity with Melanie, viewing her “as a quick little affair – quick in, quick out.” However, after being kicked out of university in disgrace, he struggles with aging and must reconcile his values ​​with those of a changing society. The reader follows David through his conflicts as he slowly progresses in his personal development. His love for Lucy and his poignant reaction to the dogs' euthanasia, where "tears flow uncontrollably down his face", show a David different from the "thoughtless intruder who imposes himself" on Melanie. Disgrace is written from David's point of view and the narrative voice is unmistakably his own. The rejection of narrative realism and an omniscient narrator often leaves the reader unsure of what is "good" and "bad." Using the protagonist as narrator and speaking in the present tense gives the reader an additional level of understanding to consider when evaluating David. The reader must not only interpret the events and actions of the novel, but also disambiguate the narrator's attitudes. The present tense gives the impression of a lack of control, which creates a worried tone throughout the novel and contributes to an uncertain reaction to David. Coetzee presents David as "bad" by suggesting that he raped Melanie, implying that his only interest in the relationship was sexual: "He asks her about her other classes. She's in a play, she says. It's one of his degree requirements. It takes him a lot of time. These thoughts are abrupt and David doesn't seem interested. The short, matter-of-fact sentences reflect an impatience with the opportunity he is seeking. During their sexual encounters, "she is passive throughout" and "decided to relax, to die within herself for the duration." During their second meeting, David goes to Mélanie's apartment for one purpose, and "nothing will stop him." which suggests that she was raped. Coetzee raises doubts about his narrator and the protagonist as David tries to convince himself that this is not rape. While David acknowledges the consequences of his actions in great detail, his immediate response – “Not rape, not quite that, but nevertheless undesirable, undesirable deep down” – implies that he must be a contradictory character. He clearly recognizes, as emphasized by the repetition of the word "undesirable" and the hesitant, insecure syntax, that he is at fault while continuing toact in this way. From most points of view, even if David's point of view is accepted, he was in a position of responsibility, older and more experienced than Melanie and must be considered "bad". These “bad” actions are contrasted when David shows his principles and courage during court. . His general disdain for university administration, which reduced literature to "communications" as "part of the great rationalization", and his opposition to the superficial suggestion to "take a yellow card" and "minimize the damage" despite “the seriousness of (his) situation” is significant. David's response to the accusations is interpreted by Lucy Valerie Graham as showing "very clearly that Lurie is blind to the history of his own actions" and therefore "wrong" because he refuses to accept "the long history of exploitation of which [his treatment of Mélanie] is one.” Graham's criticism is limited, because despite David's assertion: “I plead guilty. This is as far as I am willing to go,” can be interpreted as arrogance, rather it can show his principles. David provides a coherent rebuttal: “I said those words for you, now... you want me to demonstrate their sincerity. This is beyond the scope of the law. There is a sense of nobility in his willingness to act "for his idea of ​​the world" and his principles, as also evidenced by his sensitive disposal of the dogs' bodies. David's character is detailed more significantly after he is attacked and Lucy is raped. and it is in this context that his character is appreciated. Coetzee develops a central theme through the attack; the state of morality in post-apartheid South Africa because "it's a new world in which they live, he, Lucy and Petrus". The theme is controversial as Coetzee wrote only ten years after the end of apartheid and amid continued violence over property rights such as those in "District Six" in Cape Town throughout the 1990s. South Africa is presented as violent throughout the novel. David reflected after the attack: “This happens every day, every hour, every minute... in every corner of the country. Consider yourself lucky to have survived. David and Lucy have conflicting attitudes about the correct moral response to the violence they experience as a result of the desire of "black South Africans" to undo "a history of wrong." Lucy admits that this may be "the price of staying" while David can only see the situation as "humiliating" and reduced to living "like a dog". David's refusal to accept Lucy's acquiescence to the rapists ("I don't agree. I don't agree with what you're doing") creates a variety of possible interpretations as to whether David is “not a bad man but not good either”. His beliefs may reflect his incapacity as a father and his lack of empathy, suggested by Lucy's statement that "you behave like me, everything I do is part of the story of your life." Alternatively, his position could be interpreted as noble; "he is not ready to abandon his daughter" despite his lack of respect for her "good intentions", with his repeated criticism that "there are things we just don't know". David's reaction to Lucy's rape may show that he is "good" since his intention is only to help her. Some feminist interpretations may criticize David as a father (based on the misogynistic reputation created by his promiscuity). These criticisms might suggest that his affection is selfish since he laments that “I didn’t do anything. I didn't save you. and not Lucy's situation. However, these criticisms seemlimited as his sadness at not having been able to help his daughter seems sincere: it consumes him as illustrated when “he had a vision” in which “Lucy spoke to him” and watches over Lucy as she sleeps, “protecting her from harm , ward off evil spirits.” David's opinions, such as "if they were white, you wouldn't talk about them that way" can be interpreted as racist. Likewise, his criticism of Petrus for defending Pollux because he is "my people" might seem biased. However, these values ​​seem to reflect his courage in confronting the issue of racial conflict in post-apartheid South Africa. David is not racist; “He is prepared, albeit cautiously, to love” black South Africans like Petrus and praises him for being “a man of his generation.” David doesn't care about ethnicity but about morality. His criticism of Petrus constitutes a threat to Lucy and the South African conflict, which he embodies in this threat. Coetzee may be implying that David is courageous for breaking social taboos and criticizing superficial social etiquette which may have hidden underlying racism in South Africa at the time of writing. Coetzee could also explore a more significant aspect of the postcolonial genre; the contemporary situation of the “post-post-colonial”. It subverts traditional postcolonial presentations of "indigenous" cultures, such as those in Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart, where the arrival of "Western" colonizers is seen as destroying the Igbo way of life. This novel illustrates destruction via the tragic suicide of Okwonkwo, who embodies the “noble” values ​​of Umuofia. The presentation of the Ibo “natives” is positive: rich in tradition and ceremony as illustrated by the meeting of the “egwugwu” with tribal costumes and masks. Early postcolonial literature was written in a tone of lament for the loss of "native" tradition, such as the sadness in Things Fall Apart that missionaries "put a knife to the things that held us together and we fell apart" . However, the modern "post-post-colonial" genre also takes into account the difficulties faced by subsequent generations of the former "colonizer" (usually the "white Westerner"). Judith Wright explores this question in her poem "At Cooloolah" describing her dislocation in Australia and the need to "calm a heart charged by its own fear" as a descendant of the "colonizer". The central conflict of Disgrace, the threat to Lucy in the Eastern Cape and the tension between his attitude and that of David make it difficult to assess whether he "is not a bad man but not a good one either ". Coetzee does not justify one perspective as being fairer than another. This raises questions of the “post-post-colonial”; the difficulties of moral justice after colonialism. Many postcolonial texts address these issues, such as the recognition in Things Fall Apart that "what is good in one people is an abomination in others." Coetzee presents moral ambiguity in a postcolonial society similar to that of Achebe in Things Fall Apart, in which the "Western" reader must grapple with the apparent incongruity of an Igbo culture with many positive values ​​that nonetheless permits murder of twins and the murder of Ikemefuna because “the Oracle of the hills and caves pronounced it”. However, Coetzee's David overcomes the ambiguities of conflicting cultural values ​​by ignoring the issues from the perspective of colonialism and showing the courage to criticize the universal injustice of violence in post-apartheid South Africa. His criticism that “it is history that speaks through them” and “revenge is like fire” is an acknowledgmentcourageously speaking a socially uncomfortable truth without fear of being seen as prejudice; this undermines the idea that he is “not a bad man but not a good one either”. Negative interpretations of David may view his ignorance of the "colonial" perspective as a weakness, as the subjective narrative view suggests. Coetzee is ambiguous, providing the reader with little more than his perspective to evaluate David. David's Byronic qualities make him difficult to interpret. His connection to Byron is distinct, as they share similar physical qualities such as "olive skin" and "floating hair", and the same fear of aging (David's laments about "the end of homelessness" are undeniable). ambiguous reference to Byron's famous words, 'So we will wander no more'). David shares the typical characteristics of the Byronic hero: sexual promiscuity and life in "social exile", as he lost his livelihood in Cape Town and was already isolated, living alone and frequently frequenting prostitutes. Some of the attitudes he adopts under the pretext of romanticism (such as quoting Blake: "It is better to murder a baby in its cradle than to harbor unfulfilled desires") seem abhorrent to a modern society. His lofty, almost rhetorical language, such as "I was the servant of Eros" can be interpreted as a weak justification for renouncing self-control. David's Byronic qualities may also support an interpretation that he is "good", as implied by his noble actions during his court. Its Byronic character also reflects the difficulty of defining a moral standard and can justify interpretations according to which it is "good". The Byronic hero's perspective on society is no more valid than any other, making it unfair to conclude that David is "bad" simply because he is a "social exile." David illustrates this in his romantic interpretation of a character in Byron's poetry: “we are not asked to condemn this mad-hearted being, this being in whom there is something constitutionally evil. On the contrary, we are invited to understand and sympathize. » Such justifications can also be used to criticize David because they can highlight his refusal to control his desires. This is particularly emphasized when he understands the consequences of his actions (such as the meeting with Melanie which is "fundamentally undesirable") but fails to react or take responsibility. Rosalind also makes the significant criticism that "you have always been a great illusionist, David", which justifies a negative interpretation of her romanticism. Coetzee's presentation of the change in David as he becomes a "victim" may suggest that he is "good" or, in less positive interpretations, pathetic. The change he fears most is aging and he regrets that "his pleasure in life is stifled." This personal conflict with age can justify David's contradictory and sometimes cynical character. Details such as his frustration at being vulnerable and having to "endure the ignominy [for example] of being helped out of the bath" show that he is strong and independent, which are admirable qualities. His transformation from “executioner” (from his affair with Mélanie) to “victim” (through the attack) is lamentable because he is depicted as defeated (like the almost farcical collapse of his opera). The pathos of his situation and his acceptance of change by finding refuge by helping at the clinic reflect his "good", contrasting sharply with the "revenge" in South Africa. The searing images throughout the novel contribute to a positive presentation of David as he is. reflects his victimization, his conflicts with. 5-10-08].