This thesis analyzes the speaking and silencing of two female characters, Beatrice from Dante’s Vita Nuova and Purgatorio and Susan from J. M. Coetzee’s Foe. The texts are viewed through postcolonial and feminist lenses to show the problems with male characters speaking for female characters and the obstacles the female characters face when attempting to speak. Dante’s solution to this problem is to transform Beatrice from a silent and demure woman into a character who issues commands with a powerful voice. Coetzee’s solution is instead to refuse to provide a solution, since no one but Susan can speak for her. This thesis describes the different roles that Susan and Beatrice take on in order to gain authority and tell their true stories. The relationships of the male and female characters are explored, as well as their relationships to speaking, silence, revision, truth, and meaning.

<p>Much of the critical discourse on J.M. Coetzee’s <em>Foe</em> does not fully investigate its relationship with Daniel Defoe’s texts, despite <em>Foe</em>’s intimate relation with them. This thesis offers a postcolonial reading of Coetzee’s Susan Barton, Cruso and Friday against Daniel Defoe’s original characters Roxana, Robinson Crusoe and Friday. Chapter one discusses Roxana-as-feminist, female colonizer, representative of her sex and Amazon and compares her to Barton. It reveals the tendency of critical discourse to attempt to ‘know’ Barton as they ‘know’ Roxana, by categorizing her, and reveals how Coetzee’s character frustrates attempts to define her. The second chapter addresses eighteenth-century knowledge of race and how it differs from present day, which offers an alternate reading of <em>Robinson Crusoe</em> and complicates its use as a colonial handbook. I also discuss masculinity in Defoe’s <em>Robinson Crusoe</em> as an individual characteristic Coetzee alters into something that can be appropriated. His characters are not masculine but can wield phallic symbols such as the pen and the knife to reveal power as systemic rather than individualistic. The final chapter offers an in depth postcolonial reading of Friday and interrogates critical discourse’s tendency to read him as representative of ‘the colonized,’ or as a colonial trope.</p> / Master of Arts (MA)