The power of language and the language of power in M. T. Anderson’s Feed and Gary Stheyngart’s Super Sad True Love Story. A comparative analysis

The aim of my dissertation is to analyze how selected elements of language are addressed in two contemporary dystopias, Feed by M. T. Anderson (2002) and Super Sad True Love Story by Gary Shteyngart (2010). I chose these two novels because language plays a key role in both of them: both are primarily focused on the pervasiveness of technology, and on how the use/abuse of technology affects language in all its forms. In particular, I examine four key aspects of language: books, literacy, diary writing, as well as oral language. In order to analyze how the aforementioned elements of language are dealt with in Feed and Super Sad True Love Story, I consider how the same aspects of language are presented in a sample of classical dystopias selected as benchmarks: We by Yevgeny Zamyatin (1921), Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932), Animal Farm (1945) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) by George Orwell, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury (1952), and The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood (1986). In this way, I look at how language, books, literacy, and diaries are dealt with in Anderson’s Feed and in Shteyngart’s Super Sad True Love Story, both in comparison with the classical dystopias as well as with one another. This allows for an analysis of the similarities, as well as the differences, between the two novels. The comparative analysis carried out also takes into account the fact that the two contemporary dystopias have different target audiences: one is for young adults (Feed), whereas the other is for adults (Super Sad True Love Story). Consequently, I also consider whether further differences related to target readers affect differences in how language is dealt with. Preliminary findings indicate that, despite their different target audiences, the linguistic elements considered are addressed in the two novels in similar ways.

De-authoring or Authoring?: A plunge into the question of authorship and language in J.M. Coetzee's Foe

J. M. Coetzee's Foe is not only a post-colonial novel, but it is also a re-writing of a classic, and its main themes are language, authorship, power and identity. Moreover, Foe is narrated by a woman, while written by a male, Nobel prize winning South African author. The aim of my tesina is to focus on the question of authorship and the role of language in Foe. Without any claim to be exhaustive, in the first section I will examine some selected extracts of Coetzee's book, in order to provide an analysis of the novel. These quotations will mainly be its metalinguistic parts and will be analysed in the “theory” sections of my work, relying on literary theory and on previous works on the novel. Among others, I will cover themes such as the relationship between speech and writing, the connection between writing, history, and memory, the role of silence and alternative ways of communicating and the relationship between literary authority and truth. These arguments will be the foundation for my second section, in which I will attempt to shed a light on the importance of the novel from a linguistic point of view, but always keeping an eye on the implication that this has on authorship. While it is true that it is less politically-permeated than Coetzee's previous works, Foe is above all a “journey of discovery” in the world of language and authorship. In fact, it becomes a warning for any person immersed in the ocean of language since, while everyone naturally tends to trust speech and writing as the only medium through which one can get closer to the truth, authority never is a synonym of reliability, and language is a system of communication behind which structures of power, misconceptions, lies, and treacherous tides easily hide.