The idea that David Lurie is “not a bad man but not a good man” is a reduction of a provocative character. Disgrace explores compelling political issues ranging from post-apartheid South Africa to moral paternalism, and David's placement in the ambiguous confines of this context makes him difficult to interpret. Critics condemned Coetzee for exacerbating racial conflict by depicting the violent rape of a white woman by black Africans in the delicate political climate of the end of apartheid. Such reactions to the novel's publication exemplify the fundamental issues Coetzee addressed: 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay David seems "bad" from the start as "ninety minutes a week in the company of a woman is enough to make him happy", and this is demonstrated by a lack of emotional sensitivity with Melanie, thinking of her "as a little affair quick – straight in, quick out.” However, after being dismissed from university in disgrace, he struggles with aging and reconciles his values ​​with those of a changing society. The reader follows David through his conflicts as he makes slow progress in self-improvement. His love for Lucy and his moving reaction to the euthanasia of the dogs, in which "tears run down his face and he can't stop", show a different David from the reckless "intruder who lashes out at" Melanie. Disgrace is written from David's point of view and the narrative voice is undoubtedly his. The rejection of narrative realism and an omniscient narrator often leaves the reader unsure of what is "good" and "bad." Using the protagonist as a narrator and speaking in the present tense gives the reader an additional layer of understanding to consider when evaluating David. The reader must not only interpret the events and actions of the novel, but also clarify the narrator's attitudes. The present tense gives the impression of a lack of control, which creates an uneasy tone throughout the novel and contributes to an uncertain reaction towards David. Coetzee presents David as “bad” by suggesting that he raped Melanie, suggesting that his only interest in the relationship was sexual: “He asks her about her other courses. He's acting in a play, he says. It's one of his graduation requirements. It's taking up a lot of her time." These thoughts are sudden and David seems disinterested. Short, to-the-point sentences reflect his eagerness for the opportunity he seeks. In their sexual encounters, "she is passive throughout" and "decided to slow down, die inside herself for the duration." In their second meeting, David goes to Melanie's house for one purpose and "nothing will stop him". which suggests she was raped. Coetzee raises doubts about his narrator and protagonist as David tries to convince himself that it wasn't rape. Because David acknowledges the consequences of his actions in great detail, his immediate response – “Not rape, not quite that, but unwanted nonetheless, unwanted through and through” – implies that he must be a contradictory character. He clearly recognizes, as underlined by the repetition of “unwanted” and the uncertain, uncertain syntax, that he is at fault, yet he continued to act in this way. From most points of view, even if David's point of view is accepted, he was in a position ofresponsibility, older and more experienced than Melanie and should be considered "bad". These "evil" actions are countered as David shows his principles and courage during the tribunal. His general disdain for the university administration, which reduced literature to “Communications” as “part of the great rationalization,” and his opposition to the superficial suggestion of “getting a yellow card” and “minimizing the damage” despite “ the gravity of (his) situation” is significant. David's response to the accusations is interpreted by Lucy Valerie Graham as demonstrating “very clearly that Lurie is blind to the history of his own actions” and therefore “evil” because he refuses to accept “the long history of exploitation of which [the way in which Melanie] is a part.” Graham's criticism is limited, as despite David's statement “I plead guilty. This is as far as I'm willing to go,” could be interpreted as arrogance, but he could be showing his principles. David provides a coherent rebuttal: “I said these words to you, now…you want me to prove 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 seen also in 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 evaluated. Coetzee develops a central theme through attack; the state of morality in post-apartheid South Africa as “it is a new world that he, Lucy and Petrus live in”. The topic is controversial as Coetzee wrote only ten years after the end of apartheid and amid continuing violence over property rights such as those in "District Six" in Cape Town in the 1990s. South Africa is presented as violent throughout the novel. David reflects after the attack: “It happens every day, every hour, every minute… in every corner of the country. Consider yourself lucky to have managed to save your life. David and Lucy have contrasting attitudes about the correct moral response to the violence they experience because of the “black South African”'s desire to erase “a history of wrong.” Lucy accepts that perhaps "this is the price to pay for staying", while David can only see the situation as "humiliating" and is reduced to living "like a dog". David's refusal to accept Lucy's acquiescence towards the rapists ("I don't agree. I don't agree with what you're doing") creates a variety of possible interpretations that David is "not a man bad but not good either." His beliefs may reflect his inadequacy as a father and lack of empathy, suggested by Lucy's statement that "you act like me, everything I do is part of your life story." Alternatively, his position could be interpreted as noble; “he is not willing to abandon his daughter” despite the lack of respect for her “good intentions”, with his repeated criticism that “there are things you just don't know”. David's response to Lucy's rape may demonstrate that he is "good" as his intention is only to help her. Some feminist interpretations may be critical of David as a father (based on the misogynistic reputation created through his promiscuity). These critics might suggest that his affection is selfish as he complains that “I haven't done anything. I didn't save you." and not Lucy's situation. However, these criticisms seem limited as his sadness at not being able to help his daughter appears sincere: it consumes him as illustrated when he "had a vision" in which "Lucy spoke to him" and watches over Lucywhile she sleeps, “protecting her from harm, warding off evil spirits.” David's views, such as “if they were white you wouldn't talk about them this way” can be interpreted as racist. Likewise, his criticism of Petrus for defending Pollux because he is “my people” might appear prejudicial. However, these values ​​appear to reflect his courage in tackling the issue of racial conflict in post-apartheid South Africa. David is not racist; “he is ready, if cautiously, to also appreciate” black South Africans like Petrus and praises him for being “a man of his generation”. David is not concerned with ethnic origin but with morality. His criticism of Petrus is his threat to Lucy and the South African conflict which he embodies in this threat. Coetzee may imply that David is courageous in breaking social taboos and critiquing superficial social etiquette that may have hidden underlying racism in South Africa at the time of writing this article. 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 "native" cultures such as those in Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart, where the arrival of "Western" colonizers is seen as a destruction of the Ibo way of life. That novel illustrates the destruction through the tragic suicide of Okwonkwo, who embodies the "noble" values ​​of Umuofia. The presentation of the 'native' Ibos is positive: rich in tradition and ceremonies as illustrated by the meeting of the "egwugwu" with tribal clothes and masks. Early postcolonial literature was written with a tone of lament for the loss of "native" tradition, such as the sadness in Things Fall Apart that missionaries have "put a knife on the things that held us together and we fell apart." However, the modern "post-post-colonial" genre also considers the difficulties for subsequent generations of the former "colonizer" (usually the "white Westerner"). Judith Wright explores this issue in her poem "At Cooloolah" describing her displacement in Australia and the need to "still a heart charged with its own fear" as a descendant of the "colonizer". The central conflict of Disgrace, the threat of Lucy in the Eastern Cape and the tension between her attitudes and those of David make it difficult to assess whether he is "not a bad man but not a good man". Coetzee does not justify one perspective as more correct than another. This raises the question of “post-post-colonial”; the difficulties of moral justice after colonialism. Many postcolonial texts consider these issues, such as the recognition in Things Fall Apart that “what is good to one people is an abomination to others.” Coetzee presents a moral ambiguity in a postcolonial society similar to that of Achebe in Things Fall Apart, in which the "Western" reader is confronted with the apparent inconsistency of an Ibo culture with many positive values ​​that nevertheless allows the killing 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 issues from a colonialism perspective 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 a fire” is a courageous acknowledgment of a socially inconvenient truth without fear of being seen as prejudicial; this undermines the idea that “he is not a bad man but not a good man”. Negative interpretations of David may view his ignoring of the "colonial" perspective as a weakness, as suggested by the subjective narrative view. Coetzee is ambiguous andprovides the reader with little more than his own 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 "flowing hair" and the same fear of growing old (David's lament about "the end of wandering" refers unmistakably to Byron's famous lyric, " So we won't go around anymore." David shares the typical Byronic hero characteristics of being sexually promiscuous and living in "social exile", as he loses his livelihood in Cape Town and was already isolated, living alone and frequenting prostitutes. Some of the attitudes he holds under the premise of Romanticism (such as quoting Blake – “First kill a child in the cradle than nurse unfulfilled desires”) seem detestable for a modern society. His elevated, almost rhetorical language, such as “I was the servant of Eros” can be interpreted as a weak justification for giving up self-control. David's Byronic qualities may also support an interpretation that he is "good", as implied by his noble actions during his tribunal. Its Byronic character also reflects the difficulty in defining a moral standard and may justify interpretations that it is "good". The Byronic hero's perspective on society is no more valid than another, 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 poem: “we are not asked to condemn this mad-hearted being, this being with whom there is something constitutionally wrong. On the contrary, we are invited to understand and sympathize." Such justifications can also be used to criticize David as they may emphasize his refusal to control his desires. This is especially emphasized when he understands the consequences of his actions (such as meeting Melanie which is "unwanted to the core") but fails to respond or take responsibility. Rosalind also makes the significant criticism that "you have always been a great self-deceiver, 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 feels remorse because "his pleasure in life is being extinguished." This personal conflict with age may justify David's contradictory and sometimes cynical character. Details such as her frustration at being vulnerable and having to “suffer the ignominy [for example] of being helped out of the bathroom” demonstrate that she is strong and independent, admirable qualities. His transformation from "victim" (through his relationship with Melanie) to "victim" (through the attack) is deplorable as he is portrayed as defeated (like the almost farcical collapse of his play). The pathos of his situation and his acceptance of change by finding refuge in helping in the clinic reflects his "goodness", in stark contrast to the "vengeance" in South Africa. The searing images throughout the novel contribute to a positive presentation of David as he reflects on his victimization, conflicts with age, and diminishing passion. Phrases like “when I burn I don't sing” and the hope for a “last leap of the flame” with Melanie show the conflict David endures as he ages and loses his passions. David can be viewed sympathetically as the image of fire suggests an uncontrollable, all-consuming force and he may be a victim like the Byronic hero with whom he asks the reader to "understand and sympathize". The setting of. 5-10-08].