Annoyed, Yet interested

To begin, I am skeptical of my enjoying allegorical novels lacking a defined setting and explicitly identified characters. The vague “Empire” and the unknown location of the frontier country in which the story takes place perturbs me as I cannot seem to dismiss the details as being trivial relative to the message, no doubt, being conveyed.
Nevertheless, I digress in addressing the nature of the characters so far presented. Although he is clearly not the central character of the story—I think I reasonably interpreted the magistrate as being that—I find myself the most fascinated by Colonel Joll. First intrigued by his condescension towards the apparent provincial mannerisms of the Magistrate, my curiosity peaked over the Colonel’s apparent mission in the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. I wonder whether or not he is a truly manipulative agent of the “Third Bureau” who in Machiavellian fashion tortures a Barbarian boy until he confesses an attack is being planned, just as Joll desires. Joll’s reprehensibility I am quite confident in, but his cleverness I am not so sure of. Whether he is a cunning agent of the Empire’s secret police, “the most important division of the Civil Guard,” who recognizes the need for a justification even if its deeply hollow, or a man who blindly serves his Empire and is absolutely sure the boy is lying when he does initially “spill the beans” on the pending attack.
To broach a broader subject than Colonel Joll, I found myself a bit annoyed by what I interpreted as being anachronistic elements in the text. While Coetzee establishes no clear context, as mentioned above, that does not necessarily give him the authorial freedom to warp time, especially when it is strongly insinuated that the novel takes place in some era of imperialism. The notion of a “Third Bureau” is reminiscent of Soviet bureaucracy, something that only existed in the era in which Coetzee wrote the book. Furthermore, the notion of some special branch, specializing in interrogation and torture, seems chronologically foreign to a time period where lances are still of use.
Yet, my concern over these details is probably unwarranted as I initially stated as it does not really distort anything thing Coetzee may wish to convey. I am anxious to see how Coetzee further develops Joll’s character and how the nascent conflict between the Magistrate’s and Joll’s characters play out.

"Congo Free State" 1902 Encyclopaedia Britannica

--Congo Free State was the result of Belgium's King Leopold II's personal ambition. It has it roots in the 1878-founded International Association of the Congo that, in 1885, became the sovereign power known as the Congo Free State. It became the personal kingdom of King Leopold II--an independent state "administered as if it were a colony."

--The Congo can be divided into 3 zones: (1) the small coast area west of the Crystal Mountains, (2) the large central zone bounded to the north by the Congo and Mobangi rivers, on the east by the Mitumba range, and on the south by the Congo-Zambezi watershed and the Portuguese frontier; (3) the smaller zone east of the Mitumba range.

--The state only shows a slight change of temperature throughout the year. Tropical diseases are rampant, and "the country is not suited for European colonization."

--The region is roughly 900,000 square miles with a native population, largely of "Bantu stock" betweeen 14,000,000 and 30,000,000. "[D]istributed bands of pigmy people" are found in the forest. In 1900, there was a total of 1958 Europeans.

--The Free State is "an absolute monarchy" with no constitution. Civil and Law codes are "promulgated by decrees," and a provision is made for the mandation of ordinances by the Governor-General. The Free State is divided into 14 districts.

--"The native population are pagans, fetish worshippers, and on a very low plane of civilization." In 1900, there were 300 missionaries. In many areas, "cannibalism is rife, and degrading ceremonies are practiced."

--King Leopold spent 1.2 million pounds of his personal fortunate on establishing the state. State revenues lept from 72,261 pounds in 1886 to 11,200,000 in 1900, primarily from the "collection of caoutchoue, or rubber, from the forest, and the trade in ivory."

--There are three rights to land ownership: (1) the right of natives to "land in their own occupation," (2) private ownership by Europeans, and (3) state ownership of all land that does nto fall into the above categories.

--One railway exists, stretching 260 miles and built in 1898. The State maintains 26 steamers on the inland waterways. All other transportation is done by porters.

An Ordered Ending

The final section of Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury provides closure to the reader after a literary adventure through the lives of the troubled Compson family by alluding to the return of order. Throughout the previous sections—Benjy’s, Quentin’s, and Jason’s—we have seen chaos. Benjy, in his infantile way, had to contend with Caddy’s loss of innocence; Quentin implicitly committed suicide over the agony of a non-existent feminine ideal; and Jason cynically relates his misanthropy and misogyny. Yet, despite this copious pessimism, Dilsey’s character serves as a force that brings the remaining Compson family members back to an ordered equilibrium. Faulkner’s decision to concentrate the narrative perspective on Dilsey emphasizes the her indescribably significant position she fills for all members of the Compson family. Throughout the aforementioned turmoil, she was the one who carried on with the daily tasks of life that kept the Compson machine running, albeit not always very smoothly. This reminder of her important function—the drama of the other characters’ lives can be a bit overshadowing of her at times—suggests that Compson family—Miss Cahline, Jason, and Benjy—will persevere. Dilsey, through her infinite exertion, will once again restore affairs to a status of order. Yet, this reliance Dilsey raises a perplexing question: who will supplant her upon her corporal departure? Unfortunately, Faulkner did not write, among his many post-publication commentaries, an explicit answer to this question that I am aware of; thus, the it is left to a literary critic to derive a textual answer that clearly was intended by Faulkner’s subconscious. (260)