African literary critics want happy African writing. They want African writers to produce literature that does not deal with poverty, AIDS, war and violence because in doing so, they are playing to Western stereotypes.
And even more cynically, African writers who raise questions of poverty are doing so in order to appease the narcissistic literary appetite of Western readers - and win Western literary prizes. This is if we are to take the Nigerian literary critic, Ikhide Ikheloa, at his word.
Ikheloa is not like most literary critics who are content to work behind the fortresses of obtuse language and academic journals. He is out there in the public domain creating debate and taking to task both the reader and the writer in his column, Emails from America in 'Next' newspaper. As such there is much to respect in his criticism and much to disagree with – as it should be.
Writing about the shortlisted 2011 Caine Prize stories, Ikheloa laments that “there is not a single mention of the Internet and cell phones, not once.” This reminds me of Africans who confront Western stereotypes of Africa by responding, “Hey, but we have maids, expensive cars, mansions and skyscrapers.” Neither they nor their interlocutors pause to ask – why so much poverty amidst so much wealth?
But that is the weaker principle in his argument. What I am interested in is his assertion that “many writers are skewing their written perspectives to fit what they imagine will sell to the West and the judges of the Caine Prize.”
And the evidence he offers? The 2011 Caine Prize Five write about “roaming band of urchins” “a child soldier, “an interracial marriage gone awry” and “drunken simpletons.” Essentially, their crime is in writing stories weighed down by a “monotony of misery.”
African reality
Now, imagine if a South African writer had written a novel about the joy of growing a rose at the height of apartheid, or a Kenyan writer written a love story that takes place in a mansion at the height of the Daniel arap Moi dictatorship. They both would have been accused of denying the African reality. They both would have been accused of catering to a Western audience hungry for the Hakuna Matata Happy go-lucky-African.
Neither of these two positions where literature is judged to the proximity of “lived life” can provide a solid base for literary criticism. This sort of criticism actually promotes the kind of singular literary criticism it was opposing in the writing. This is because it encourages a critical approach that does not have aesthetics at the centre. The focus becomes the message and its relationship to a vague reality to be defined by the critic wielding the pen.
Add a Comment



RSS