Petrus’s Character in the Novel, “Disgrace” by J.M Coetzee

In his book “Disgrace,” J.M. Coetzee tells the tale of South African professor David Lurie. He is embroiled in a controversy after having an affair with a student. While he waits for the reputation to fade, he makes the decision to relocate to another country and reside with his daughter Lucy. The book depicts the characters’ uneasy ties to their native South Africa. After ethnic segregation and discrimination in South Africa are abolished, shame occurs. However, it shows the various conducts in which the effects of cultural and political coercion continue in South Africa. The paper will illustrate how Petrus was a disgrace in the novel by having a hunger for power, involvement in the rape incident and loyalty towards his family.

When we meet Petrus, we seem to be meeting a countryside representative. He introduced himself to David regarding his occupation, which involved rural duties. He is a black neighbor who lives in the stables and helps Lucy in her farm operations in the Eastern Cape. Lucy says that Petrus had become her co-proprietor and through the novel, he gains more control of Lucy’s property and eventually owns the whole farm at the end of the book. Coetzee first introduces Petrus as a gardener and a dog man who had just fled from South Africa. When David arrived at the farm, Petrus owned a small part of the land but continuously increases his property. Petrus was suspiciously absent on the day of the crime, and he returns with building materials to build a bigger house (Barnard, Rita, and Coetzee 207). Moreover, Petrus holds a party after his land transfer goes through officially which only David and Lucy are the only whites who attend it. At the party, he does not give drinks to the whites and declares himself as having finished the life as a dog man. Lucy does not realize the magnitude of the statement until Petrus resigns as her assistant. By liberating himself the character of the dog man, Petrus moves to an upper class and turn into what a Black would not have become during the discrimination regime: a sovereign farmer and owned arable lands. There is a shift of power since David helps Petrus lay down the pipes after the party. Furthermore, Petrus said that he did not require a professional advice from David and merely calls him a “handlanger.” David advises Lucy to temporarily leave the farm because she stood no chance of competing against Petrus who had modern equipment.

Petrus is suspiciously absent on the day the intruders, and the rapists choose to commit the crimes of killing Lucy’s dogs, stealing David’s car and raping Lucy. Ettinger, Lucy’s neighbor, articulates that it is impossible to trust a Black person. David finds it odd that when Petrus comes back, he does not report to Lucy, instead, he returns with building materials and two sheep for the scheduled party (Barnard, Rita, and Coetzee 211). When David confronts Petrus, Petrus comforts him by saying that they ”are all right now.“ Additionally, Petrus did not ask about the condition of Lucy further indicating that Petrus might have been involved in the incident. During a later discussion between David and Petrus, Petrus refuses to identify the boy that David wanted to turn to the police to help in the criminal investigation. Petrus says that the kid is too young to be jailed and ends the conversation. This makes it suspicious that he was involved in the whole saga since he did not disclose all information about the boy.

Petrus further reveals that the boy was his relative and that he had the responsibility of protecting his family. The boy later moved into life with Petrus. Petrus argues that matters of crime ought to be handled by the police and the insurance companies (Barnard, Rita, and Coetzee 215). Moreover, in an attempt to protect the boy, Petrus wanted him to marry Lucy once he is grown up with the aim of accumulating his property. It is therefore clear that Petrus qualifies for the verdict, ”A disgrace” as illustrated by his character.

The article, ”Is there any hope left in South Africa” shows the injustices towards the black. The blacks did not have political rights in South Africa. Moreover, they were only limited to certain types of inferior jobs (Adelman, Kenneth 46). Socially, they were not allowed to engage in numerous activities by apartheid. The article further discusses how their human rights were violated and how they were discriminated. Furthermore, the Reading against Race illustrates how the blacks were discriminated by their culture Adelman, Kenneth. It also discusses the various measures taken by the blacks to gain power as represented in the novel, Disgrace by J.M Coetzee. These two articles show how the blacks were treated during the apartheid regime.

Works Cited

Barnard, Rita, and J. M. Coetzee. ”JM Coetzee’s“ Disgrace” and the South African Pastoral.“ Contemporary Literature 44.2 (2003): 199-224.

L. ”Apartheid: Is There Any Hope Left in South Africa?“ Journal of Black Studies 13.1 (1982): 45-58.