makinson2865:
Big big grammar everywhere...
Back to the topic, let remove gods are not to blamed by chinua achebe(of blessed memory) and let's see if he will be relevant .I think the answer is capital No.
Wole omo soyinka is the real deal from here to the whole world.



Igbo pls take heart ,dont kill yourself for yoruba matter.

You ended up shooting yourself to the foot. first of all, there is nothing like the gods are not to blameD but the gods are not to BLAME by your kin's man Ola Rotimi.

I guess you wanted to say Things fall apart which by far is Chinua's most popular works.

Dont be hasty to drink your tea, hence you end drinking it with a fork. cheers

Elnida:


Dude take ur frustration elsewhere. u must not impugn my person to pass ur vague point.
if u wish to criticize, do it constructively. Sadist everywhere. Gosh

Don't be ludicrous...

Elnida:


You ended up shooting yourself to the foot. first of all, there is nothing like the gods are not to blameD but the gods are not to BLAME by your kin's man Ola Rotimi.

I guess you wanted to say Things fall apart which by far is Chinua's most popular works.

Dont be hasty to drink your tea, hence you end drinking it with a fork. cheers

Education in the west us quantitative trust me ...did you see his mistake

vonlogon:
What prof is telling Reno in simple English is " I don't have your time"

I swear Prof is indeed Prof. Oh Lord, his English ehn. I love both of great men Sha.

Sanchez01:

At the emboldened, where did you get that nonsense from?

/you clearly have no idea of this subject matter. Do well to acquaint yourself with Literature and social classes in different centuries. Wole Soyinka's works are not for everyone. Unlike other writers who opted for simpler diction, and adopted them all through their works, Soyinka stayed through to his style and diction even though many found it convenient. Many would choose to go to the movies over an Opera because they consider the latter to be very boring while those at the top of the social chain would opt for the latter. That's class and taste rolled into one.

Soyinka's works will never appeal to those with common minds. I'd advise you see the movie 'The Professor and the Madman' and then take up a short work of Soyinka after that to read or study.

I would have promptly replied you yesterday but die to time zone difference, i couldn't. I was at work.

Now. I will show you what i mean.

Soyinka is a scholar and a great man. No doubts.
He is a writer. But then, the question remains, what manner of writer is he?

Who is a writer and what's his duty?

To me, a writer goes beyond a master of the word and a legend of the craft.
A writer owes a duty to the society. A first calling.
He serves as a historian.

People can look at a writers work, in time ro come, say next 50yrs and in looking back; they can grasp the realities of what we faced presently, just by reading his works.
The encyclopedia is merely there as a complementary platform.

And so, you can read Toni Morrison books and learn about the anguish of black Americans and the impact of slavery on their bruised spirits through the 70s and much of the 90s.
You can feel her post modern feminism and approach to myth and folklore that were largely revisionist.

Her works were not couched in secluded, elitist prose or words that were meant to be understood by the high and mighty in the academia who will pass away someday and the books just stay on the shelves waiting for who has the brain to interprete it.

All and sundry can read her works and understand her positions and messages.
When that's achieved. The writer has achieved his primary duty to his society.

Moreso, so many of her works have been adapted to screenplays ( another tool for history preservation)
If reading the book is a challenge, you can turn to the movie and see what she meant.

One can read Robert Frost works and see the lost beauty of America in simpler times and how the times have changed.
How America drifted from the rural to the urban.

One can read works of writers who chronicled the advent of the mob through the 1920s and you can see Al Capone movies inspired by their works, even in latter times.

These writers served the first calling.

And so, i ask.
Soyinka is a writer. But then, to what end?
If only you and a few select understand what you're writing about...my friend, you've not passed the second test.
Why is it that most of the things he's involved with demand a ticket?
I can't even talk about his Pyrates club creation and how most of us still don't understand its purpose.

And true, some of his works were a reference to a time in our lives ie The Biafran war, military rule, corruption. Etc.

But, in reading them; one always mostly gets lost in detail because he bamboozles you with unnecessary high diction.
And check, what they say in mass communication courses.
When you write to impress and not be fully understood by many, you've not duly communicated.

On a lighter note, visit https://esteemcity.com/ for self-publishing needs, PDF document editing, formatting and more.

madjune:


I would have promptly replied you yesterday but die to time zone difference, i couldn't. I was at work.

Now. I will show you what i mean.

Soyinka is a scholar and a great man. No doubts.
He is a writer. But then, the question remains, what manner of writer is he?

Who is a writer and what's his duty?

To me, a writer goes beyond a master of the word and a legend of the craft.
A writer owes a duty to the society. A first calling.
He serves as a historian.

You already missed it. There are different kind of writers as far as literature is concerned and they don't necessarily tilt towards history let alone serve as custodians. Metaphysical writers are classic examples of this. They have no regards for history are show any interest in serving as eyes of time. All they bother with are funny, though interesting subject matters, largely sex. They achieve this through ingenious conceits, incongruous imagery, complexity and subtlety of thought, frequent use of paradox, and often by deliberate harshness or rigidity of expression. John Donne, Andrew Marvel, George Herbert, Henry Vaughn are classical examples of such form of writing.

A writer's first duty is not to his society. While some writers choose to be dwell on societal motifs, projecting verisimilitude through literary devices, it doesn't imply that all writers must follow suit.

People can look at a writers work, in time ro come, say next 50yrs and in looking back; they can grasp the realities of what we faced presently, just by reading his works.
The encyclopedia is merely there as a complementary platform.

And so, you can read Toni Morrison books and learn about the anguish of black Americans and the impact of slavery on their bruised spirits through the 70s and much of the 90s.
You can feel her post modern feminism and approach to myth and folklore that were largely revisionist.

Her works were not couched in secluded, elitist prose or words that were meant to be understood by the high and mighty in the academia who will pass away someday and the books just stay on the shelves waiting for who has the brain to interprete it.

All and sundry can read her works and understand her positions and messages.
When that's achieved. The writer has achieved his primary duty to his society.

Moreso, so many of her works have been adapted to screenplays ( another tool for history preservation)
If reading the book is a challenge, you can turn to the movie and see what she meant.

One can read Robert Frost works and see the lost beauty of America in simpler times and how the times have changed.
How America drifted from the rural to the urban.

One can read works of writers who chronicled the advent of the mob through the 1920s and you can see Al Capone movies inspired by their works, even in latter times.

These writers served the first calling.

And so, i ask.
Soyinka is a writer. But then, to what end?

With the above, it is obvious you clearly don't know Wole Soyinka, let alone understand his works. Have you at any point read 'Telephone Conversation' where he bemoaned racism and dwelt on man's inhumanity to man over certain differences?? Have you read 'Alapata Apata', a satirical work of Prof's on abuse of power in the society? How about 'Document of Identity', a semi-autobiographic account of events that took place under Abacha? How about 'The Interpreters', a postcolonial reflection of cultural politics and the rejection of stereotypical representation? It is obvious what many, just as you, understand about Soyinka is his use of superfluous yet abstruse diction. More than Achebe or any other Nigerian writer, Soyinka dwelt on culture and cultural politics, postcolonialism, corruption, neocolonialism, African imperialism, racism, myth in respect to literature and how it affects Africans. No other African writer combined these elements like Soyinka. At best, we had writers who solely focused on an era and maintained such as form which they developed. Buchi Emecheta, Ayi Kwei Armah, Leopold Sedar Senghor, Ngugi wa Thiong'o etc all channeled their strength into an era. At best, two, and remained that way.

If only you and a few select understand what you're writing about...my friend, you've not passed the second test.
Why is it that most of the things he's involved with demand a ticket?
I can't even talk about his Pyrates club creation and how most of us still don't understand its purpose.

I am honestly trying to make sense of this. Heaven knows I am trying to.

But, in reading them; one always mostly gets lost in detail because he bamboozles you with unnecessary high diction.
And check, what they say in mass communication courses.
When you write to impress and not be fully understood by many, you've not duly communicated.

Herein lies your grouse. Sadly, it came last. Whether you like Soyinka's works because of his diction isn't the problem. It is what he adopted a long time ago and have come to define and influence his writing style.

Mass communication as a course doesn't dwell on literature. Those you should be mentioning here are those who studied Linguistics and African Languages, English Language or literature in itself.

You should take some Anglo-Saxon works to read, analyze before crucifying a man over his choice of language. I get it, you are obviously not a student of literature and would rather judge a book by its writer, it still doesn't make you correct. What irks me is that those who accidentally studied one or two of Soyinka's works during their elementary Art days in secondary school come out to claim Achebe is a better writer because his works are easily understood.

You clearly think Soyinka deliberately writes to impress, which tells a lot about your stance.

For the record, A GOOD WORK IS NOT EASILY UNDERSTOOD. DON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF LUMPING LITERATURE AND COMMUNICATION TO BE ONE. THEY AREN'T AND ARE CLEARLY GOVERNED BY DIFFERENT RULES.

Sanchez01:

You already missed it. There are different kind of writers as far as literature is concerned and they don't necessarily tilt towards history let alone serve as custodians. Metaphysical writers are classic examples of this. They have no regards for history are show any interest in serving as eyes of time. All they bother with are funny, though interesting subject matters, largely sex. They achieve this through ingenious conceits, incongruous imagery, complexity and subtlety of thought, frequent use of paradox, and often by deliberate harshness or rigidity of expression. John Donne, Andrew Marvel, George Herbert, Henry Vaughn are classical examples of such form of writing.

A writer's first duty is not to his society. While some writers choose to be dwell on societal motifs, projecting verisimilitude through literary devices, it doesn't imply that all writers must follow suit.



With the above, it is obvious you clearly don't know Wole Soyinka, let alone understand his works. Have you at any point read 'Telephone Conversation' where he bemoaned racism and dwelt on man's inhumanity to man over certain differences?? Have you read 'Alapata Apata', a satirical work of Prof's on abuse of power in the society? How about 'Document of Identity', a semi-autobiographic account of events that took place under Abacha? How about 'The Interpreters', a postcolonial reflection of cultural politics and the rejection of stereotypical representation? It is obvious what many, just as you, understand about Soyinka is his use of superfluous yet abstruse diction. More than Achebe or any other Nigerian writer, Soyinka dwelt on culture and cultural politics, postcolonialism, corruption, neocolonialism, African imperialism, racism, myth in respect to literature and how it affects Africans. No other African writer combined these elements like Soyinka. At best, we had writers who solely focused on an era and maintained such as form which they developed. Buchi Emecheta, Ayi Kwei Armah, Leopold Sedar Senghor, Ngugi wa Thiong'o etc all channeled their strength into an era. At best, two, and remained that way.


I am honestly trying to make sense of this. Heaven knows I am trying to.



Herein lies your grouse. Sadly, it came last. Whether you like Soyinka's works because of his diction isn't the problem. It is what he adopted a long time ago and have come to define and influence his writing style.

Mass communication as a course doesn't dwell on literature. Those you should be mentioning here are those who studied Linguistics and African Languages, English Language or literature in itself.

You should take some Anglo-Saxon works to read, analyze before crucifying a man over his choice of language. I get it, you are obviously not a student of literature and would rather judge a book by its writer, it still doesn't make you correct. What irks me is that those who accidentally studied one or two of Soyinka's works during their elementary Art days in secondary school come out to claim Achebe is a better writer because his works are easily understood.

You clearly think Soyinka deliberately writes to impress, which tells a lot about your stance.

For the record, A GOOD WORK IS NOT EASILY UNDERSTOOD. DON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF LUMPING LITERATURE AND COMMUNICATION TO BE ONE. THEY AREN'T AND ARE CLEARLY GOVERNED BY DIFFERENT RULES.

If a writer's first duty is not to his society, then to whom is it?

When i referenced his Pyrates creation, i meant to highlight another thing he's involved with which demands a ticket to a better understanding.

I, myself don't fully understand that cult or club thing and the raison d'etre.
If you're to defend it, you might as well again say it's not for everybody.
It's elitist. I agree.

madjune:


If a writer's first duty is not to his society, then to whom is it?

His audience. Society is large and denotes certain aspect of human lives, putting literature into consideration. You feel a writer should dwell on pressing issues as that is the only way he or she can gain relevance. False. A writer's first duty is to entertain and to do this, he must connect with his audience. He already has a class of people who fancy his works. He understands this and must strive never to fall short.

When i referenced his Pyrates creation, i meant to highlight another thing he's involved with which demands a ticket to a better understanding.

I, myself don't fully understand that cult or club thing and the raison d'etre.
If you're to defend it, you might as well again say it's not for everybody.
It's elitist. I agree.

Soyinka's creation of the Pyrates Confraternity was to defend the oppressed. The mandate of the confraternity was to fight for human rights and social justice in Nigeria. The confraternity would engage in peaceful protests against the Nigerian government and hold an annual colloquium. The name Pyrates Confraternity was chosen for "fun" and intended to mock, and the "y" was intended to dissociate the group from modern pirates. Furthermore, the use of the word "confraternity" was intended to distinguish the Pyrates from other fraternities.

I am not a fan of cult groups, neither do I condone them but the Pyrates Confraternity till tomorrow isn't your average cult group.

madjune:


I would have promptly replied you yesterday but die to time zone difference, i couldn't. I was at work.

Now. I will show you what i mean.

Soyinka is a scholar and a great man. No doubts.
He is a writer. But then, the question remains, what manner of writer is he?

Who is a writer and what's his duty?

To me, a writer goes beyond a master of the word and a legend of the craft.
A writer owes a duty to the society. A first calling.
He serves as a historian.

People can look at a writers work, in time ro come, say next 50yrs and in looking back; they can grasp the realities of what we faced presently, just by reading his works.
The encyclopedia is merely there as a complementary platform.

And so, you can read Toni Morrison books and learn about the anguish of black Americans and the impact of slavery on their bruised spirits through the 70s and much of the 90s.
You can feel her post modern feminism and approach to myth and folklore that were largely revisionist.

Her works were not couched in secluded, elitist prose or words that were meant to be understood by the high and mighty in the academia who will pass away someday and the books just stay on the shelves waiting for who has the brain to interprete it.

All and sundry can read her works and understand her positions and messages.
When that's achieved. The writer has achieved his primary duty to his society.

Moreso, so many of her works have been adapted to screenplays ( another tool for history preservation)
If reading the book is a challenge, you can turn to the movie and see what she meant.

One can read Robert Frost works and see the lost beauty of America in simpler times and how the times have changed.
How America drifted from the rural to the urban.

One can read works of writers who chronicled the advent of the mob through the 1920s and you can see Al Capone movies inspired by their works, even in latter times.

These writers served the first calling.

And so, i ask.
Soyinka is a writer. But then, to what end?
If only you and a few select understand what you're writing about...my friend, you've not passed the second test.
Why is it that most of the things he's involved with demand a ticket?
I can't even talk about his Pyrates club creation and how most of us still don't understand its purpose.

And true, some of his works were a reference to a time in our lives ie The Biafran war, military rule, corruption. Etc.

But, in reading them; one always mostly gets lost in detail because he bamboozles you with unnecessary high diction.
And check, what they say in mass communication courses.
When you write to impress and not be fully understood by many, you've not duly communicated.

Wole Soyinka is a wordsmith while Chinu Achebe is a great story teller.
Wole Soyinka's versatility dwarfs Achebe's with a very wide margin.
Wole Soyinka is highly skilled in the 3 genres of literature.........drama , prose and poetry.
Achebe's strength lies mainly in prose.
This is not to take anything away from the great Chinua Achebe but Wole Soyinka's award as a nobel laurette is very very very well deserved and it is something every Nigerian should be proud of . If anyone feels Achebe deserves a nobel prize, such should be stated in clear terms or better still, directed to those who give the awards. It is disrespectful to drag Wole Soyinka along with the lamentation as though he is the reason Achebe never won it. The last time I checked, the award is usually given every year and Wole Soyinka won in just 1 of the several years. So, what happened to the remainder of the years?

Sanchez01:
Soyinka's creation of the Pyrates Confraternity was to defend the oppressed. The mandate of the confraternity was to fight for human rights and social justice in Nigeria. The confraternity would engage in peaceful protests against the Nigerian government and hold an annual colloquium. The name Pyrates Confraternity was chosen for "fun" and intended to mock, and the "y" was intended to dissociate the group from modern pirates. Furthermore, the use of the word "confraternity" was intended to distinguish the Pyrates from other fraternities.

I am not a fan of cult groups, neither do I condone them but the Pyrates Confraternity till tomorrow isn't your average cult group.

I think you are being too generous with your replies. What has confraternity got to do with the subject matter at hand. You should know that when some people are losing a debate, they tend to shift focus to some inconsequential things with respect to the topic of discuss.
The fact remains that Wole Soyinka's versatility and dexterity with the pen cannot be compared to Chinua Achebe's. If the 3 genres of literature are combined, Soyinka beats Achebe hands down!

naturalwaves:




I think you are being too generous with your replies. What has confraternity got to do with the subject matter at hand. You should know that when some people are losing a debate, they tend to shift focus to some inconsequential things with respect to the topic of discuss.
The fact remains that Wole Soyinka's versatility and dexterity with the pen cannot be compared to Chinua Achebe's. If the 3 genres of literature are combined, Soyinka beats Achebe hands down!

Well, I was curious to know why Pyrates Confraternity came into the discussion and what he was driving at. I have never thought Achebe to be in the same class as Soyinka, from the outset. However, this thread shocked me and has revealed a lot about how Nigerians think. Sadly, it is normal for people to hate things they don't understand. It is only natural.

Osagyefo98:


what ur point and what do you want to achieve listing this.

be straight to the point.

To show you his works and also to educate you that his works are far beyond 55pages u claimed in your post.

Sanchez01:

The emboldened is a suicidal comparison. I read tons of John Milton's works way back as I did Shakespeares. Achebe can clearly be likened to Milton. Both focused on a genre while Shakespeare and Soyinka found a genre to be restrictive.

As good as Milton was with poetry, Shakespeare was referred to as a national poet and the 'Bard of Avon'. That tells a whole lot. It is only fair to compare writers who focus solely on one genre. Example: Frank AIG-Imokhuede vs J.P. Clarke or Niyi Osundare, etc.

Achebe and Soyinka's argument is like drawing comparisons between a fixed player vs a utility player in football. They are not even close by a mile. Whatever Achebe wrote in his prose world, Soyinka translated into the same genre and extended to the other two. Even his plays I saw alongside that of Ola Rotimi way back left me dazed.

You pick Soyinka's works to study and analyze only to start wondering what he was thinking when he wrote that particular work. Achebe is an amazing writer in his own right and his novel enjoyed more popularity than Soyinka's for several reasons. Sadly, comparing saying Achebe is better as far as literature is concerned is committing a literary Seppuku.

You sure know your onions. Respect.