“Late Essays: 2006-2017” by J. M. Coetzee: On Roxana incorrectly says “Roxana (a pseudonym: it is implied that she has a ‘real’ name but we never learn of it)”

The latest essays of the Nobel Prize-winning author are reviewed in today’s New York Times Book Review: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/12/books/review/jm-coetzee-late-essays.html?_r=0

Using Amazon to access most of Coetzee’s essay on Daniel Defoe’s novel Roxana, I find what I quoted above. Coetzee says the reader never learns the protagonist’s real name. But that is not true. The reader eventually learns that her name is “Susan.” I discussed Roxana in six posts in January 2016:

January 2, 2016

Multiple personality in Preface to Roxana (post 1) by Daniel Defoe (post 2): The novel is a collaboration between the character and writer personalities.

Roxana is the first-person narrative of a beautiful lady. According to the preface (see below), the narrative is her words, somewhat dressed up by the Relator and edited by the Writer, especially to avoid indecencies. The Writer knew Roxana’s first husband and father-in-law, and the veracity of that part of her narrative suggests to him that the rest of it is true, too.

Are the Relator and the Writer the same person? If they are, why use the two different names, and why use “we” in the preface’s last sentence? Or, perhaps, “we” refers to the writer and Defoe.

Indeed, who wrote the preface? If Daniel Defoe wrote the preface, then he is not The Writer, unless Defoe is referring to himself in the third-person (which people with multiple personality sometimes do).

Preface (abridged) 

“The History of this Beautiful Lady, is to speak for itself: If it is not as Beautiful as the Lady herself is reported to be…the Relator says, it must be from the Defect of his Performance; dressing up the Story in worse Cloaths than the Lady, whose words he speaks…

“The Writer says, He was particularly acquainted with this Lady’s First Husband…and with his Father…and knows that first Part of the Story to be Truth…This may, he hopes, be a Pledge for the Credit of the rest…she has told it herself…

“If there are any Parts of her Story, which being oblig’d to relate a wicked Action, seem to describe it too plainly, the Writer says, all imaginable Care has been taken to keep clear of Indecencies…

“In the mean time, the Advantages of the present Work are so great, and the Virtuous Reader has room for so much Improvement, that we make no Question, the Story…will…be read both with Profit and Delight.”

Comment: In past posts, many other writers have been quoted as saying how their characters are like alternate personalities who come to them (not from them) and tell their story to a writer personality. The latter may or may not be the same as the regular, everyday, host personality.

According to this preface, the writer personality knew and spoke with three other personalities—Roxana, her first husband, and his father—and got Roxana’s whole story directly from her, with partial corroboration from the other two.

To whom does “we” refer? Relator & Writer? Writer & Defoe? Roxana, Writer, and Defoe? All I can say is that “we,” when used in regard to one person, refers to more than one personality.

The only other possibility I can think of is that “we” is an editorial “we” of the publisher. But it seems unlikely that the publisher would say the writer knew Roxana’s relatives.

Daniel Defoe. Roxana, The Fortunate Mistress, or, a History of the Life and Vast Variety of Fortunes of Mademoiselle de Beleau, afterwards called the Countess de Wintselsheim in Germany, Being the Person known by the Name of the Lady Roxana in the time of Charles II. Edited with an introduction and Notes by John Mullan. Oxford University Press, 1724/2008.

January 3, 2016

Nameless characters: The silly explanation in the Preface of Roxana (post 2) by Daniel Defoe (post 3) for why most of the characters are nameless.

from The Preface

“The Scene is laid so near the Place where the Main Part of it was transacted, that it was necessary to conceal Names and Persons; lest what cannot be yet entirely forgot in that Part of the Town, shou’d be remember’d, and the Facts trac’d back too plainly, by the many People yet living, who wou’d know the Persons by the Particulars.

“It is not always necessary that the Names of Persons shou’d be discover’d, tho’ the History may be many Ways useful; and if we shou’d be always oblig’d to name the Persons, or not to relate the Story, the Consequence might be only this, That many a pleasant and delightful History wou’d be Buried in the Dark, and the World be depriv’d both of the Pleasure and the Profit of it.”

Now, obviously, since good pseudonyms do not make people more identifiable, the preface’s explanation for why most of the novel’s characters are nameless is pure nonsense.

To understand the more probable explanation for the novel’s nameless characters, you need to know about naming in novels, and names in multiple personality.

Naming in Novels

In past posts, I have quoted some novelists as saying that their characters come to them already having names. These novelists consider it their job to tell the truth about their characters, and so, if a character came to them nameless, then to put a name on that character would be a lie, and the novelist would not want to do it.

I infer that most of Defoe’s characters in this novel came to him without names, and he did not want to lie about them.

Names in Multiple Personality

In multiple personality, some alternate personalities come with names, but many do not.

Daniel Defoe. Roxana [1724]. Edited by John Mullan. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Nameless, incognito protagonist in Roxana (post 3) by Daniel Defoe (post 4): An illustration of the typical secrecy of alternate personalities in multiple personality.

“We call the novel by a name that Defoe did not give to it. Roxana was first recorded as the title of the book in an edition published in 1742, eleven years after its author’s death” (1, p. 332), eighteen years after it was first published in 1724. Its original title was The Fortunate Mistress.

The preface does not name the protagonist, and it will turn out that “Roxana” is a nickname she picks up along the way. She keeps her real name secret for most of the novel. I wonder if the character had kept her name secret from Defoe, too.

One of the reasons that multiple personality usually remains hidden and undiagnosed is that alternate personalities like it that way, and prefer to remain incognito. I discussed this in a past post about “Rumpelstiltskin”:

Monday, May 5, 2014

The Brothers Grimm tale "Rumpelstiltskin," an Allegory of the Secret, Incognito, Alternate Personality in Multiple Personality

In a previous post about Edgar Allan Poe, I discussed that in real life Poe had an alternate personality named “Nobody,” which is the kind of name sometimes used by alternate personalities to remain secret and unidentified. I noted that it was the same kind of naming trick used by Odysseus to fool the Cyclops in Homer’s Odyssey, suggesting that Homer knew things about multiple personality.

Poe and the Odyssey illustrate that, in multiple personality, alternate personalities like to carry on their lives, and go about their business, incognito. Indeed, to understand multiple personality, you have understand that it is, by nature, hidden and secretive.

In the Brothers Grimm tale “Rumpelstiltskin” (1812), a young woman must spin straw into gold or be killed. A magical imp, Rumpelstiltskin, gets the straw spinned into gold for her, but to pay him, she will have to sacrifice her first-born, unless she can guess or discover his name.

So this is a story about a secret person, who acts behind the scenes, and who maintains his personal power relative to a regular, well-known person by keeping his identity and name secret.

The tale is an allegory of multiple personality, in which the young woman represents the regular or host personality, while Rumpelstiltskin represents the hidden, behind-the-scenes alternate personality.

In multiple personality, the host personality often knows little or nothing about the alternate personalities. And the alternate personalities are often particularly reluctant to divulge their names.

I can’t be more specific now in regard to this novel, because I haven’t finished reading it. All I can say is that a novel with a nameless and incognito protagonist is probably a multiple personality scenario.

1. Daniel Defoe. Roxana [1724]. Oxford University Press, 2008.

January 4, 2016

Alternate Personality Narrates: Literary criticism knows, but cannot explain, that the first-person narrator in Roxana (post 4) by Daniel Defoe (post 5) is Susan.

“…As a matter of fact, the narrator[’s real name is] not ‘Roxana’ but ‘Susan’. We discover this, in passing, late in the book…The keeping hidden of her original name (and of her married names) will not, in itself, surprise any reader familiar with Defoe’s fiction. All the narrators of his novels change or conceal their names…In none of Defoe’s other novels, however, is the imposition of a new name as perturbing as it is in Roxana…

“The woman…often finds it useful, and more comfortable, to be ‘Incognito’…(1, p. xvi-xvii).

It is not merely “perturbing.” It is bizarre, and requires an explanation, why Susan doesn’t use her real name, and why the reader learns her real name only late in the novel, and then only when it is mentioned in passing. Is it that she knows her real name, but doesn’t identify with it, because she sees herself as a different person? Who is this first-person narrator, psychologically speaking?

The above reminds me of a past post on Dostoevsky’s The Double:

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Post #3 on Dostoevsky’s The Double; Post #2 quoting Mikhail Bakhtin

“But who tells the story in The Double?…one gets the impression that the narration is dialogically addressed to Golyadkin himself, it rings in Golyadkin’s own ears as another’s voice taunting him, as the voice of his double, although formally the narration is addressed to the reader.” 

As I previously said, the story is not really about Golyadkin’s downfall. It is about the double’s triumph. “History is written by the victors.” The double—the alternate personality—tells the story.

Perhaps Roxana is narrated by Susan’s alternate personality.

1. Daniel Defoe. Roxana [1724]. Introduction by John Mullan. Oxford University Press, 2008.

January 8, 2016

Why the nameless protagonist of Roxana (post 5) by Daniel Defoe (post 6) does not want to meet her abandoned daughter: shame or multiple personality?

The nameless protagonist—her secret, real name, is Susan; her nickname as a whore, is Roxana—gives a bogus reason for not wanting to meet the daughter she abandoned many years ago.

Her bogus reason is that she is now retired from her life as a whore (her word); she has just married a man who knows nothing about her past; and she fears that her daughter would expose her. Moreover, she wants to shield her daughter from the shame of knowing that her mother was a whore. So now that she is rich, she wants to provide financial support to her daughter as an anonymous benefactor.

However, there is little or nothing in the text to indicate that the daughter—also named Susan—either wants to expose, or would be ashamed of, her mother. From the daughter’s words and behavior, it appears that her motivation for trying to find and meet her mother is purely emotional: She longs to have a mother, and to be loved and recognized by her mother.

So what is the real reason that Nameless fears meeting her daughter? I call the protagonist “Nameless,” because Roxana is not her real name, Susan is, but she never uses her real name. Literary analysis of Roxana must explain its most salient fact: the protagonist is nameless.

One possible explanation is that Nameless has multiple personality. She does not use the name Susan, because that is the name of a personality who has not been in control for many years. Susan may be a depressed, victimized personality, who was last in control at the time her first husband abandoned her and their five young children to dire poverty. The real risk to Nameless of meeting her daughter is that such a meeting could bring out that depressed, victimized personality.

The unnamed personalities who made her rich and happily married want to remain in control. However, that depressed personality, Susan, is always behind-the-scenes and trying to come out. And the presence of the daughter—also named Susan, who was last in her life when the depressed personality was in control, and, especially, would address her by the name Susan—might shift the balance of power in favor of the depressed personality and enable the latter to come out and take over.

If you have a better explanation for both why the protagonist is nameless and why she does not want to see her daughter, please submit your comment.

January 9, 2016

Oxford University Press bungles title and cover illustration of Roxana (post 6) by Daniel Defoe (post 7): Protagonist is not “Roxana,” and her face is not “painted”

The Oxford University Press edition is highly commendable. It uses the original 1724 text, not the many later, unauthorized revisions. And it has an excellent Introduction and Textual History.

However, it disregards the novel’s text in its use of the unauthorized, revised title, “Roxana” instead of the original title, “The Fortunate Mistress.” And its cover illustration, the portrait of a woman who is obviously wearing makeup, is also at odds with the text.

When Daniel Defoe published his novel with the title, “The Fortunate Mistress,” he knew what he was doing. His protagonist is an extremely fortunate mistress, and remains fortunate until the very last paragraph, which appears tacked on to appease moral censors.

As the Introduction and text make clear, “Roxana” is not the protagonist’s name, but only a nickname for whore, which, on one occasion, was called out by men watching her do an exotic dance. If the publisher wanted to retain that name in the title, because that is the title by which the novel is best known, the least they should have done was to make it “The Roxana,” meaning The Whore. But the novel is not really about being a whore, but about a woman who was very fortunate in her career as a mistress.

Moreover, the title Roxana, especially if you skip the Introduction, misleads the reader into thinking that the protagonist uses that name, or any name at all. And if you don’t realize that the protagonist does not use any name, you miss the salient feature of this novel that distinguishes it from most others.

As to the cover illustration: It is a running joke in this novel that the protagonist is so beautiful that she does not need to “paint” (use makeup). Time and again, she declares to her clients that she does not paint, and gives them a glass of hot water and a cloth with which to rub her cheek as hard as they wish, to prove that her perfect complexion is not due to any makeup. They are amazed.

Daniel Defoe. Roxana. Oxford University Press, 1724/2008.