Afam4eva:
Of course there's no such award as "father of Literature" but the term can be used to describe person or persons who have shaped Africa with their literary works.

If there's no such award, then why the ludicrous allocation? And when such parlous allocation is made and same being unmasked, why the continuous fixation as if such has been earned like an award? Sometimes people do describe anyone who fancies their imagination using superlative adjectives but that won't make such fix especially when it's contestable.

Afam4eva:
BY using "Arguably", i'm trying not to give other writers the benefit of the doubt as it regards their influence. It's just a way of showing respect to other writers of repute. I could as well use "Unarguably" and heaven will not fall.

Arguably the best is not the best in absolute sense. It's tantamount to saying he was one of the very best. In other words, arguably the best means anyone beside him could lay claim to such title and to use your words "heaven will not fall" You can't claim to be the best without that being challenged when you are not the very best.

Afam4eva:
What sort of influence are you expecting other than the that his books have been touted to be one of the most read books ever. That is a huge achievement for a book coming from Africa. The respect he garners from world figures is astounding. No need to stress it as far as his influence goes. Look for something else.

That's where you lot missed the point. That a book is most read does not confer what one would call a literary "masterpiece" on such a book. The content of a book and the message a book is passing across is quite different from how such words are weaved. In other words, the "wordsmithery" in a book is what distinguishes it from that written by other who by calling are not practitioners of literature. When you judge a book for literary value, that's exactly what you check out. The issue of influence is neither here nor there. If you want to clinch award, you know the writers to emulate and if you are looking for commercial success, you do know those to follow too. Both are well respected everywhere on earth and are commercial success too.

Afam4eva:
Like i said previously, it's not a title like the ones you stated. He can't call himself "Father of INternet Chinua Achebe". It's just a pseudonym used to recognize his literary influence in and out of Africa.

Anybody can call anyone anything. I can decide to call you Ogbuefi but other may simply contest the appellation. And since you did not earn such title, you really couldn't have lay claim to it. Exuberance, willful exaggeration can at times bring unnecessary ornamentation.

Afam4eva:
Stop bringing the fact that he belongs to one genre to the fore. Does the fact that Tom Cruise is an action movie actor stop him from being awarded the best actor? Are there no Drama, Romance, comedic actors out there? Literature is literature, simple.Who says you must lead in two genres of literature before been considered the best or most influential. is it written in the bible or the constitution of nations of the world? You guys have to desist from making statements that have no foundation or basis.

No I won't stop doing that. Literature is literature to a common reader and that over simplification of literature is why many are at loss why Achebe did not win a Nobel. One could also say football is football but the players who play in different wings may not readily agree to such simplification. That's why the taste and the choice of the Nobel committee perhaps turned not to deify Achebe as the commoners would have loved. Achebe could readily claim he was the best novelist and challenge any one to question that. But could he have claimed to be the best playwright or poet and went ahead to make similar challenge? That's the truth you brushed aside in one breadth by saying literature is literature.

The best description of Achebe that would not elicit resentful eyebrows is that of Achebe being one of the best writers. There is no fact, logic, meaningful research to substantiate any other appellation.

Prof Corruption:

If there's no such award, then why the ludicrous allocation? And when such parlous allocation is made and same being unmasked, why the continuous fixation as if such has been earned like an award? Sometimes people do describe anyone who fancies their imagination using superlative adjectives but that won't make such fix especially when it's contestable.

If i call you the most honest man, does that mean you were given an ward for it?

Prof Corruption:
Arguably the best is not the best in absolute sense. It's tantamount to saying he was one of the very best. In other words, arguably the best means anyone beside him could lay claim to such title and to use your words "heaven will not fall" You can't claim to be the best without that being challenged when you are not the very best.

I think i've answered this already.

Prof Corruption:
That's where you lot missed the point. That a book is most read does not confer what one would call a literary "masterpiece" on such a book. The content of a book and the message a book is passing across is quite different from how such words are weaved. In other words, the "wordsmithery" in a book is what distinguishes it from that written by other who by calling are not practitioners of literature. When you judge a book for literary value, that's exactly what you check out. The issue of influence is neither here nor there. If you want to clinch award, you know the writers to emulate and if you are looking for commercial success, you do know those to follow too. Both are well respected everywhere on earth and are commercial success too.
Anybody can call anyone anything. I can decide to call you Ogbuefi but other may simply contest the appellation. And since you did not earn such title, you really couldn't have lay claim to it. Exuberance, willful exaggeration can at times bring unnecessary ornamentation.

Who decides the literary prowess of a book if not the public or is there somewhere in the bible or quoran that tells us how to recognize a book with literary masterpiece? If you call me Ogbuefi, i have to really deserve it by my achievements. The Father of African tag has more to do with influence than anything else. Achebe's book opened the door for so many African writers hence the title.

Prof Corruption:
No I won't stop doing that. Literature is literature to a common reader and that over simplification of literature is why many are at loss why Achebe did not win a Nobel. One could also say football is football but the players who play in different wings may not readily agree to such simplification. That's why the taste and the choice of the Nobel committee perhaps turned not to deify Achebe as the commoners would have loved. Achebe could readily claim he was the best novelist and challenge any one to question that. But could he have claimed to be the best playwright or poet and went ahead to make similar challenge? That's the truth you brushed aside in one breadth by saying literature is literature.

Nobody has called Achebe the best African writer and if anyone does, i will challenge the person as being called the best is relative and is a matter of personal opinion. Even winning the NObel prize in literature does not make you the best not even in the year that you won it. You have to realize that the tag of "father of African Literature" has more to do with the influence of his literary works like i have been positing than anything else.

Prof Corruption:
The best description of Achebe that would not elicit resentful eyebrows is that of Achebe being one of the best writers. There is no fact, logic, meaningful research to substantiate any other appellation.

Achebe is one of the best African writers, so is Chimamanda Adiche, so is Afam4eva. Afam4eva, Chimamanda and Achebe could also be one of the worst writers from the back depending on how far you want to go. So, calling someone "one of the best" should only apply to people who are neither here nor there but Achebe's influence is there for everyone to see.

Afam4eva:
If i call you the most honest man, does that mean you were given an ward for it?

No, it does not. But remember, it does not mean I am the most honest either. But it does represent your opinion which you are entitled to. Other may simply take you up on it and in the absence of any meaningful evidence to substantiate your description, the legs on which such stand become too weak to support it.

Afam4eva:
I think i've answered this already.

If he can't claim that, then the claim of "Father of African literature" becomes tenuous and untenable. He had contemporaries who published during his time and who also influenced African writers in subsequent generations.

Afam4eva:
Who decides the literary prowess of a book if not the public or is there somewhere in the bible or quoran that tells us how to recognize a book with literary masterpiece? If you call me Ogbuefi, i have to really deserve it by my achievements. The Father of African tag has more to do with influence than anything else. Achebe's book opened the door for so many African writers hence the title.

No, the public do not determine literary prowess. Otherwise, Nobel prizes in Chemistry, Economics, Medicine etc would have been thrown open to public to judge and make return. It takes a literary mind to evaluate and appreciate a literary masterpiece. This stuff is not democracy, it's genuineness and thoroughness of scholarship. If you call a lawyer to judge a book, he may simply evaluate it from legal perspective. If similar job is extended to a grammarian, he might just be fixated on lexical structure and adherent to punctuation rules. If same is given to a pepper seller, a basic evaluation might be -oh, I can read this without dictionary beside me. So the general readership is different from professional commentary on any piece.

Achebe books opened the door for so many writers in exactly what way? Those writers would not have been writers if not for Achebe? Or his contemporaries that wrote about the same time did not also influence subsequent writers? These are vague generalizations that can not be backed up with facts. Anyone could claim he/she influenced anything but where is the proof?

Afam4eva:
Nobody has called Achebe the best African writer and if anyone does, i will challenge the person as being called the best is relative and is a matter of personal opinion. Even winning the NObel prize in literature does not make you the best not even in the year that you won it. You have to realize that the tag of "father of African Literature" has more to do with the influence of his literary works like i have been positing than anything else.

The truth of the matter is there is no such thing as the best in anything. Everything in life is relative and contextual. The best in Enugu might be the worst in Abuja. There is relativity in everything, nothing is really absolute.

When you say influence of his literary works in what exact ways should that be explained ? What's that influence and how is it measured? How is that influence when measured surpasses that of his contemporaries? You can not just say influence and stop there. Show how that influence is the thing!

Afam4eva:
Achebe is one of the best African writers, so is Chimamanda Adiche, so is Afam4eva. Afam4eva, Chimamanda and Achebe could also be one of the worst writers from the back depending on how far you want to go. So, calling someone "one of the best" should only apply to people who are neither here nor there but Achebe's influence is there for everyone to see.

Like I said one could ascribe all sorts of superlative descriptions to oneself but it's entirely a different kettle of fish if such come close to real approximation. Being considered one of the best reveals a great deal of talent but it's still different from laying claim to being the very best. "Achebe's influence is there for everyone to see" is neither here nor there and the name could be replaced by anyone or author and the import of that statement would still be same.

Prof Corruption:
No, it does not. But remember, it does not mean I am the most honest either. But it does represent your opinion which you are entitled to. Other may simply take you up on it and in the absence of any meaningful evidence to substantiate your description, the legs on which such stand become too weak to support it.

Isn't it also the opinion of a lot of people who see Achebe as the "Father of Internet" which includes Nelson Mandela, the South African Nobel Prize winner and so many others? Why should it be a big deal if it's not cast in stone.

Prof Corruption:
If he can't claim that, then the claim of "Father of African literature" becomes tenuous and untenable. He had contemporaries who published during his time and who also influenced African writers in subsequent generations.

You can't compare the influence such people's works had compared to Achebe.

Prof Corruption:
No, the public do not determine literary prowess. Otherwise, Nobel prizes in Chemistry, Economics, Medicine etc would have been thrown open to public to judge and make return. It takes a literary mind to evaluate and appreciate a literary masterpiece. This stuff is not democracy, it's genuineness and thoroughness of scholarship. If you call a lawyer to judge a book, he may simply evaluate it from legal perspective. If similar job is extended to a grammarian, he might just be fixated on lexical structure and adherent to punctuation rules. If same is given to a pepper seller, a basic evaluation might be -oh, I can read this without dictionary beside me. So the general readership is different from professional commentary on any piece.

There's the Nobel prize, Chancellor's Gold Medal for poetry, Warwick prize for writing etc. There's a reason why the same people don't win all of them. It's unconnected with the fact that these award institutions have different varibles for determine who is worthy of their prize. So, it's a matter of personal opinion. So, we should leave people to what they think and if popular knowledge decide to ascribe a certain moniker to someone, who are we to argue over it.

Prof Corruption:
Achebe books opened the door for so many writers in exactly what way? Those writers would not have been writers if not for Achebe? Or his contemporaries that wrote about the same time did not also influence subsequent writers? These are vague generalizations that can not be backed up with facts. Anyone could claim he/she influenced anything but where is the proof?

This is not a black and white issue. People have been writing before Achebe was born but his works opened the doors for other African writers whose works were not been paid attention by foreigners. That's part of the reason why a lot of African writers see him as their Father in Literature.

Prof Corruption:
The truth of the matter is there is no such thing as the best in anything. Everything in life is relative and contextual. The best in Enugu might be the worst in Abuja. There is relativity in everything, nothing is really absolute.

So, in the spirit of relativity, why are we arguing over what relative people say about Achebe?

Prof Corruption:
When you say influence of his literary works in what exact ways should be explained that? What's that influence and how is it measured? How is that influence when measured surpasses that of his contemporaries? You can not just say influence and stop there. Show how that influence is the thing!

The fact that we're talking about Achebe here is one pointer. The fact that Mandela has spoken fondly of him is another pointer. The fact that the world intellegentia paid their respect to Achebe adds credence. The fact that Achebe was discussed on the floor of the NIgerian senate adds credence. The fact that the president of Nigeria is attending his burial alognside other world leaders is a pointer to this fact. That's just few of the pointers of his unwavering influence. Don't sweat it bro. Let's give honour to whom it's due.

Prof Corruption:
Like I said one could ascribe all sorts of superlative descriptions to oneself but it's entirely a different kettle of fish if such come close to real approximation. Being considered one of the best reveals a great deal of talent but it's still different from laying claim to being the very best. "Achebe's influence is there for everyone to see" is neither here nor there and the name could be replaced by anyone author and the import of that statement would still be same.

What is real approximation? who determines real approximation? What variables are used to determine real approximation? Who determines the variables? Who decides the people who decides the variables...All this brings us back to relativity.

Afam4eva:
Isn't it also the opinion of a lot of people who see Achebe as the "Father of Internet" which includes Nelson Mandela, the South African Nobel Prize winner and so many others? Why should it be a big deal if it's not cast in stone.

First, no one sees Achebe as the father of internet. Literature is what's being discussed. Why should it be a big deal too if others who are Nobel Prize winner equally say such thing does not exist. It's not cast in stone and it's not an award available to be clinched.

Afam4eva:
You can't compare the influence such people's works had compared to Achebe.

In exactly what ways? because you said so, we should simply take it as the gospel? What's the yardstick for measuring this influence?

Afam4eva:
There's the Nobel prize, Chancellor's Gold Medal for poetry, Warwick prize for writing etc. There's a reason why the same people don't win all of them. It's unconnected with the fact that these award institutions have different varibles for determine who is worthy of their prize. So, it's a matter of personal opinion. So, we should leave people to what they think and if popular knowledge decide to ascribe a certain moniker to someone, who are we to argue over it.

Out of these prizes you have mentioned, why is the Nobel the one being rehashed and discussed extensively in dailies? Why is no one talking of Warwick or Chancellor's Gold Medal for poetry? I laughed at these your awards. My dear, there is a reason why the fixation is on Nobel prize and it's simply because of it's preeminence. The rest are just like asking someone who made a first class honours in University to compete in secondary school for medals. Simply laughable.

Afam4eva:
This is not a black and white issue. People have been writing before Achebe was born but his works opened the doors for other African writers whose works were not been paid attention by foreigners. That's part of the reason why a lot of African writers see him as their Father in Literature.

That's false. Achebe wrote a counter narrative to what was in vogue being that Africa lacks "history or civilization" before colonization. The sociological narratives in Things Fall Apart which showed how Igbo capitulated to colonialism dispelled such narrative. So it's more of what the book contains than the artistic mastery deployed in the book. It's the political value of the book that's being celebrated so to say and not the literary value. So the question of Father of African literature is a concoction that has no basis in anything apart from pure opinionated gossips.

Afam4eva:
So, in the spirit of relativity, why are we arguing over what relative people say about Achebe?

The argument arose because you said Soyinka lost it be stating what was and still factually correct because quite frankly such a designation does not exist and can not be "officialized".

I think Soyinka lost it by making this assertion himself instead of allowing it to come from Achebe's mouth

Afam4eva:
The fact that we're talking about Achebe here is one pointer. The fact that Mandela has spoken fondly of him is another pointer. The fact that the world intellegentia paid their respect to Achebe adds credence. The fact that Achebe was discussed on the floor of the NIgerian senate adds credence. The fact that the president of Nigeria is attending his burial alognside other world leaders is a pointer to this fact. That's just few of the pointers of his unwavering influence. Don't sweat it bro. Let's give honour to whom it's due.

This got me cracking! Why don't you kill his contemporaries to also gauge their influence? I expect a better argument from you. You don't have to be a writer or intensely influential to be to be accorded such recognition. If a personal friend of Jonathan dies today and a burial is fixed for say tomorrow, the probability of GEJ going there is closer to one than zero. after all he attended funeral of fathers of some presidential aides. Presidential presence at burial place is not a good judge of literary accomplishments. It could be done to project political correctness or for something else. These are vague statements that do not support or prove anything. You can't say for instance that "world intelligentsia" if such thing exist do not also hold his contemporaries in high opinion.

Afam4eva:
What is real approximation? who determines real approximation? What variables are used to determine real approximation? Who determines the variables? Who decides the people who decides the variables...All this brings us back to relativity.

The real approximation is a simple fact that Achebe was not a father of African literature. What's winnable or has been won can be ascribed like someone being called a Nobel laureate. That's not an approximation but indeed a factual statement that can be independently verified. Can such a bogus title of Father of African literature be verified in such manner? Anyone could lay clam to such.

babyosisi...I think you missed the point.

WS was calling these people illiterate fools, and stating that it is giving oyibos license to look down on us (because now they think African literature is a baby).

In this particular instance, your tribalism is damaging to every person with black skin. So I am going to have to ask you to stop.

Were Egyptians not African? Did they not write?
What about the scrolls in Timbuktu? Were they not written by Africans?
What about all the ancient Ethiopian texts? Were they not written by Africans?

I could go on, and on, and on. Go read a book! Africans have been writing since before your "Father of African Literature" was born. Centuries before. And if you read what WS said carefully, you would see that he says that Achebe himself thought the title was ridiculous.

The man Soyinka and his over bloated ego

So, I just stumbled on the interview Wole Soyinka (WS) gave Sahara Reporters some days ago on diverse issues ranging from his relationship with Chinua Achebe to his views (jaundiced, I dare say) on the evolution of African Literature, the Biafran war, Nigeria and Nigerians in general in his glorified capacity as the first and only Nobel laureate of Nigerian extraction.

The interview was some sort of cathartic release for WS- an avenue for the Septuagenarian to vent his pent up frustration at the huge shadow the specter of his contemporary, Chinua Achebe continues to cast over him even in death while it also subtly read as a diatribe aimed at ‘literary ignoramuses,’ and all those who do not understand literature the way a Nobel laureate does and who cause embarrassment to the few like him who are in the serious business of literature.

While I couldn’t stop riling at this septuagenarian’s arrogance and sheer condescension at minor mortals (other literary luminaries with less global visibility) who dare to view life from a different perspective, I quickly understood Soyinka’s mindset when I came across the part in the interview where he reduced Achebe’s status and global literary influence into a cocoon, tagging Achebe a mere ‘storyteller’.

First off, WS is Nobel laureate and the world has come to accept him as deserving of this honor, but the verbiage in his writings (post Nobel) and the long-windedness of his responses in interviews leaves one wondering what exactly this erudite grammarian is trying so hard to validate. The best communicators are those who pass their message across in simple flowing language for ease of understanding and interaction.

Not Wole Soyinka, our famed Nobel laureate who is given to rigmarole and grandstanding- he chooses to obfuscate rather than edify, his choice of words try to deliberately confound rather than enlighten. I guess WS wants to conform- to be seen as the purveyor of sophisticated language and diction, expected (in his own estimation, I guess) of all those who have won such a reputable literary prize.

We all expect to show proficiency in any language we choose to communicate, but becoming verbose in response to straight forward questions where a simple answer would suffice? Read Wole Soyinka verbatim in the said interview when asked about his relationship with Achebe and insinuations they were enemies:
‘It would be stupid to claim that it was all constantly harmonious, but outsiders should at least learn some humility and learn to deal with facts. Where, in any corner of the globe, do you find perfect models of creative harmony, completely devoid of friction? We all have our individual artistic temperaments as well as partisanships in creative directions. And we have strong opinions on the merits of the products of our occupation.’

Now, tell me- if this isn’t arrant nonsense, I wonder what else is. Simple question, ‘Is this man your enemy? Then WS goes off a tangent. First off, this does not even answer or put to the matter to bed once and for all. Interpreting WS’ long windedness loosely says:
‘It would be a lie to say we never disagreed but where in the world do you find people of the same profession agreeing all the time? In the arts as it is with all other professions that hinge on creativity, each individual has his or her own preferences and sees things from their own perspective. We are all passionate about our work and what we do for a living.’

WS rambles further but nowhere does he say he and Achebe were good friends though he does imply they weren’t enemies. Definitely nowhere near C. Ronaldo’s clear stand that he and Messi are not friends as they don’t share drinks or have dinner together, when asked about his relationship with the Argentine footballer. If you don’t consider the above proof of WS’ verbiage, then try this for size in the same interview:

‘It is not all bleakness and aggravation however – I have probably given that impression, but the stridency of cluelessness, sometimes willful, has reached the heights of impiety. Vicarious appropriation is undignified, and it runs counter to the national pride it ostensibly promotes. Other voices are being drowned, or placed in a false position, who value and express the sensibilities between, respect the subtle threads that sustain, writers, even in their different orbits.’

This is WS’s response as a corollary to another question about his tortuous relationship with Achebe. Ofcourse, this is just part of the entire response he gave and without reading the full response, you can’t get the import of what WS was trying to say, but if this quoted response was perhaps torn off a newspaper and a reader saw only these 72words? He would be hard pressed to make out head or tail of it. Wasn’t this supposed to be just an interview? A PhD thesis perhaps?

I mean we’ve had other winners of the Nobel from Africa after Soyinka, haven’t we? And we enjoy reading them. Soyinka says they are all language users– meaning they routinely apply language’s techniques to communicate.

We have read Nadine Godimer- the South African activist who won the Prize in 1991 and seen her apply the techniques of language. She always comes across simply and lucidly without boring us with rare, scrabble words and long winding phrases. Even secondary school students and University freshers are able to understand her.

John Coetzee and Nahguib Mahfouz are in similar company and all seek to enlighten as they use language and apply its techniques, but not WS who must try to project an elevated form of his craft for applause, bamboozling the less sophisticated.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand.

What caught my attention about this interview was WS’s response to a question on claims Achebe was the Father Of African Literature. Sahara Reporters pointed out Achebe himself had on many occasions rejected this claim in interviews and WS quickly agreed with them and Achebe’s stance while alive. I am not here to argue whether Achebe was indeed the Father of African Literature or not. This honor is only titular as is subject to different levels of acquiescence from different people.

However, that Achebe refused this titular honor while alive does not invalidate it, if indeed many felt so. It just goes to show the modesty of the man- refusing to arrogate to himself a title that had no empirical backing, one that was not conferred on him by any recognized body but by the masses and other literary luminaries.

Indeed, Micheal Jackson never ever called himself the King of Pop, but we all agreed he was. If anyone had taken time to ask him while he was alive, he wouldn’t have agreed most probably out of humility, even if he knew in his heart he was. Modesty demands you never accept such generic titles publicly in your lifetime.

It would be a different answer if you walked up to Micheal Jackson and said his Thriller album was the highest selling of all time. Here there are hard figures to back it up, so he would accept- not a titular honor like King Of Pop which modesty demands you never confer on self.

Back to WS and his offhand dismissal of Achebe’s title as Father Of African Literature. In his desperation to convince us otherwise, WS employs warped logic to buttress this needless rebuttal. He asks what acquaintance with other African literatures like Francophone, Lusophone, Zulu, Xhosa, Ewe those who make such claims have?

So the question we must ask WS is- ‘In making acquaintance with those literatures from other African writers, need we go to those locales to be conversant with them? If their works were any good, they would be popular even internationally. Of what influence have their works been on the global stage?

WS had this glorious opportunity given by Sahara reporters to confer on a late colleague a titular title that would have been the biggest tribute ever paid a fellow professional colleague but chose rather to even belittle the legacy calling him a mere story teller. Yet WS went ahead to include himself in the league of ‘pioneer contemporary quartet’ of Nigerian writers- his own creation.

If I may ask WS, in African literature, he is a pioneer of what? Contemporary what? What is his definition of contemporary? What makes him think that others that came before him were not contemporary? Or not pioneers for that matter? Contemporary by layman’s definition simply means modern or present day. Who told WS he is modern or present day? What timeline is he using? So Helon Habilla or Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie can also claim to be pioneers of contemporary African Literature, cant they?
Please if everyone else is afraid to tell WS the truth, I will- Soyinka is a pioneer of nothing. Others came before him and others have come after him. He is only in the middle. African Literature or even Nigerian Literature did not begin with him, so how do you pioneer what you didn’t start? Soyinka only pioneered the act of receiving Nobel awards, so if he must, he should coin an honor along that line.
So if WS arrogated to himself a title as a Pioneer of Contemporary African Literature nay Nigerian writers which has no recognition anywhere other than passive acquiescence, what makes WS feel Achebe cannot also enjoy the titular honor of Father Of African Literature given him, not just by Nigerians, but the world (who WS says, ‘have seized on this silliness with glee, legitimized their ignorance, their parlous knowledge and enabled them to circumscribe, then adopt a patronizing approach to African literatures and creativity) at large?

For sake of argument, even if Achebe is not the Father of African Literature as Wole Soyinka so desperately wants us to believe, he is indeed the Father of Contemporary African Literature, a classification which WS has agreed exists. The only locus standi WS has to insult our sensibilities with his parochial ramblings is because of the inexplicable decision of the Nobel Academy in 1986, so he shouldn’t deify himself or become legend in his own mind as he so obviously has.

Hear WS when asked about the nature of Achebe’s enduring influence and impact in African literature and how he (WS) sees Achebe’s place in the canon of world literature. ‘Chinua's place in the canon of world literature? Wherever the art of the story-teller is celebrated, definitely assured.’

Can you imagine such a surprisingly short and pithy response from a grandstanding old man who used more than a thousand words in the same interview to cast aspersions on the character and integrity of those who criticize him but used less than these two dozen words to properly situate the efforts his contemporary in the annals of history?’

I guess even in death and without the Holy Grail of Literature, Achebe’s stature still towers over the Nobel winner, who obviously is not one to patronize a more celebrated colleague. WS, you could do with some patronage- he who refuses to celebrate a King can never be a King. I guess this is why even with his Nobel, WS finds it difficult to understand why Achebe seems to be more revered than him.

When asked to evaluate Achebe’s role in popularizing African Literature via African Writers Series, AWS, Soyinka never gets to talk about Achebe’s efforts, but goes off a tangent attacking the credibility of the series and reinforcing his stance 50years ago when the series was launched. Many of us born in the late 70’s and early 80’s grew up reading authors from that series, a worthy initiative WS refused to support, and which Achebe championed as a pioneer editor.

Pride, I guess will not let WS admit he made a mistake by not subscribing to this laudable initiative then, on the suspicion it would fall into ‘ghetto classifications’- another of the meaningless words he bandies about to reinforce his dated reasoning. I mean, the AWS was a worthy initiative created by Heinemann in 1962 that educated most of us and had authors like Ngugi Wa’ Thiongo, Godimer, Steve Biko, Buchi Emecheta, Cyprian Ekwensi etc. It gave these post independence writers a platform from which they rose to global acclaim.
They educated and inspired most of us- we read books like Burning grass, No Longer At Ease, Zambia Shall Be Free, Weep Not Child, The Beautiful Ones Are Not Yet Born etc and those books have stood us in good stead till this day.

Instead of owning up and saying he was wrong not to support the initiative when it came on stream, WS sits smugly today to still foolishly call this series ‘Onitsha Market Literature,’ with a sweetener that though the authors were not Onitsha Market standard, outside forces consigned the series as such. So if unscrupulous marketers and pirates hijacked the publishing and marketing of the series, does that detract from the quality of the works? This man is a joke. Perhaps his is sliding slowly and steadily into senile dementia.

On Achebe’s last book, There Was A Country, WS agrees he never discussed the book with the author but wished the book was never written, as there are statements in the book he wished Achebe never made.

While he only stopped short of thrashing the book into the dust bin, he didn’t fail to leverage on the sterile literacy of the book to fire broadsides at some of his critics- a certain Maja Pearce, a present day publisher who was the African Editor of an International magazine as far back as 1983, a magazine that was publishing Wole Soyinka at the time.

This man gave a not so nice review of Soyinka’s book more than a quarter century ago and for that, he is and will always be an ‘inept hustler’ in WS’s mind. So I guess you must be a Nobel Laureate before you shed the toga of inept hustler. WS must be a very vindictive man.

When asked about young African writers of today, WS only remembered to say he always fought the temptation to throw some of their works out the window whenever he was held up in traffic, the only time he ever had time to go through their works.

He couldn’t mention a single book by a young author he had enjoyed reading, WS couldn’t mention a single author he enjoys reading or had mentored. This singular mention would have skyrocketed the writers reputation and sent people scrambling for his book, but no, not WS, he doesn’t indulge anyone. Such a mean man.

He refused to even endorse a single young writer as the most obvious; Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is a protégé of his more cerebrated colleague, Achebe. Most younger generation writers have been inspired by Achebe and not WS, so I guess smarting from such snobbery, WS was in no mood to patronize any.

WS arrogates to himself the power of omniscience- knowing it all and takes everyone else- fellow writers, those outside the literary circles, critics, new writers and all else alike, to the cleaners. All through the interview, he never gives credit to anyone yet berates all and sundry for their perceived lack of intelligence, understanding or acumen.

Look at how he even describes some of his contemporaries: ‘JP (Clark) remains as irrepressible, contumacious and irascible as he was during that creative ferment of the early sixties. Christopher (Okigbo) was ebullient. Chinua mostly hid himself away in Lagos, intervening robustly in MBARI affairs with deceptive disinclination.’
How complimentary is this? Or is describing a colleague as irascible, patronizing? Anyway, that word, contumacious? Is that a word used in every day discourse? Especially in an interview that even minors are reading? But ofcourse, who am I to question our all knowing Nobel laureate. He sends us scrambling for our dictionaries just as quickly as Pastor Chris and the Bini court jester, Patrick Obahiagbon.

WS goes further to talk about Nigerians and their misplaced sense of entitlement, an accusation for which he is very much guilty. ‘It is a Nigerian disease,’ he says. ‘Nigerians need to be purged of a certain kind of arrogance of expectations, of demand, of self-attribution, of a spurious sense and assertion of entitlement. It goes beyond art and literature. It covers all aspects of interaction with others. Wherever you witness a case of ‘It’s MINE, and no other’s’, ‘it’s OURS, not theirs’, at various levels of vicarious ownership, such aggressive voices, ninety percent of the time, are bound to be Nigerians. This is a syndrome I have had cause to confront defensively with hundreds of Africans and non-Africans. It is what plagues Nigeria at the moment –’

WS sees himself as the custodian literary ethos of the African continent. This posturing is evident in his later day writings, speeches and interviews; especially this very one he gave Sahara Reporters. To him, every other person (apart from the few he grudgingly concedes to, like Achebe, Clark, Okigbo etc) are outsiders, they cannot and must not be accepted into the ‘literary hall’ of fame he belongs as long he lives. They are simply not good enough, not fit, not worthy to be accepted into the pantheon he occupies by virtue that singular prouncement of 1986.

This parochial mindset of a ‘supposed’ mentor is very bad for the development of the nation and a binder on the conveyor belt of literary talent on rotation in Nigeria. Truth be told, in his heart of hearts, I am sure WS does not want any other Nigerian to get this prize in his lifetime so his deification by the Lagos- Ibadan axis press will continue while I am also quite sure he wasn’t too happy that another African, the Egyptian won the prize just two years after him. Two other Africans have also since joined him on the Nobel podium.

Though I have been greatly influenced by the works of Achebe, I do not hold brief for the late writer. He died a bitter old man for a clutch of reasons- the ‘genocide’ perpetrated by the Government against his people half a centrury ago, the near state of anarchy his homeland degenerated to while in exile and of course his inability to win that Nobel when an ‘inferior’ colleague enjoyed that honor for more than a quarter century while he lived. Such is the paradox of the quintessential preferment of fate and the inexplicable workings of celestial mechanics as ordained by the almighty.

Going by this interview, WS is a hard sell as an altruistic personality. His choice of language is most times crude and at best condescending- he calls others illiterates, ignoramuses, hustlers, upstarts, misfits and all manner of derogatory words. For a man occupying such an exalted place in public space, I find this especially distasteful and obnoxious.

He is a teacher and mentor and his demeanor should reflect this in his interactions and public remarks. Couching broadsides and thinly veiled barbs in verbosely constructed lingua fools no one and does him no favors. Giving honor to whom honor is due also does not lessen him or his achievements in any way.

Trying to belittle a colleague’s legacy however subtly done, is tantamount to crass classlessness and ‘yellowbellics’ the likes of which he, WS accuses many of. Achebe is not just a mere storyteller, that he is a continental nay, global icon as well as an institution is something even he, WS cannot change.

That Soyinka lives in perpetual state of self denial of Achebe’s higher station of literary influence is no longer hidden. His chagrin that Achebe’s global endorsement as Africa’s greatest puts a lie to his own literary pretensions as Africa’s Numero Uno drives him into making envious statements like ‘referring to Achebe as the Father Of African Literature is literary ignorance or “momentary exuberance’.
How uncouth can a man get? I rest my case.

babyosisi:

That was his opportunity to condemn the book if he is sincere
It is an act of cowardice to say at a Man's death what you didn't have the b.alls to say while he lived
I love Soyinka but I also hate cowards

you called wole soyinka a coward? ha ha ha aha i laughed in india

bobthebuilder99: babyosisi...I think you missed the point.

WS was calling these people illiterate fools, and stating that it is giving oyibos license to look down on us (because now they think African literature is a baby).

In this particular instance, your tribalism is damaging to every person with black skin. So I am going to have to ask you to stop.

Were Egyptians not African? Did they not write?
What about the scrolls in Timbuktu? Were they not written by Africans?
What about all the ancient Ethiopian texts? Were they not written by Africans?

I could go on, and on, and on. Go read a book! Africans have been writing since before your "Father of African Literature" was born. Centuries before. And if you read what WS said carefully, you would see that he says that Achebe himself thought the title was ridiculous.

Thanks for your intervenion here.

It is simply trite to reduce Soyinka's rejection of this label to jealousy, when it is essentially no different from his categorization of negritude - "Un tigre ne proclâme pas sa tigritude, il saute sur sa proie" (A tiger doesn't proclaim its tigerness; it jumps on its prey)

Now while I do not necessarily agree with his wholesale dismissal of the negritude movement or afrocentricity (which in some ways, is the child it birthed), I recognise that he has been pretty much consistent with his argument.

bobthebuilder99: babyosisi...I think you missed the point.

WS was calling these people illiterate fools, and stating that it is giving oyibos license to look down on us (because now they think African literature is a baby).

In this particular instance, your tribalism is damaging to every person with black skin. So I am going to have to ask you to stop.

Were Egyptians not African? Did they not write?
What about the scrolls in Timbuktu? Were they not written by Africans?
What about all the ancient Ethiopian texts? Were they not written by Africans?

I could go on, and on, and on. Go read a book! Africans have been writing since before your "Father of African Literature" was born. Centuries before. And if you read what WS said carefully, you would see that he says that Achebe himself thought the title was ridiculous.

Thank you, some people believe they are the mouthpiece of Prof Achebe just because they are Igbo. Achebe himself rejected the idea because he find it ridiculous but some people want to tag him by force.
We as Nigerians can come together and award Achebe the father of Nigerian literature, that can be compared to the English award to Shakespeare ( which is even debatable). The English didn't regard Shakespeare as the father of European literature because they simply can't do that as there are other literature icons from other European countries that his people may believe he's better than Shakespeare.
African literature is rich and had existed for centuries even before either Soyinka or Achebe were born so how can you call someone a father of what has existed before him?

bobthebuilder99: babyosisi...I think you missed the point.

WS was calling these people illiterate fools, and stating that it is giving oyibos license to look down on us (because now they think African literature is a baby).

In this particular instance, your tribalism is damaging to every person with black skin. So I am going to have to ask you to stop.

Were Egyptians not African? Did they not write?
What about the scrolls in Timbuktu? Were they not written by Africans?
What about all the ancient Ethiopian texts? Were they not written by Africans?

I could go on, and on, and on. Go read a book! Africans have been writing since before your "Father of African Literature" was born. Centuries before. And if you read what WS said carefully, you would see that he says that Achebe himself thought the title was ridiculous.

Thank you very much for educating these historical illiterates. Do you think someone like babyosisi knows anything about the Timbuktu manuscripts, or the ancient Egyptian texts? For her and her ofe onugbo and pounded yam ilk, African literature starts in the 1950s. So Achebe is the "father of African literature". Can't you see?

ROSSIKE: Thank you very much for educating these historical illiterates. Do you think someone like babyosisi knows anything about the Timbuktu manuscripts, or the ancient Egyptian texts? For her and her ofe onugbo and pounded yam ilk, African literature starts in the 1950s. So Achebe is the "father of African literature". Can't you see?

Just to correct an impression. Being tagged the Father of Literature has little to do with whether or not you were in the first in that field. It culminates several variables.

Afam4eva:
Just to correct an impression. Being tagged the Father of Literature has little to do with whether or not you were in the first in that field. It culminates several variables.

But you need to have exposed yourself to that sea of African literature covering literally THOUSANDS of years before Achebe was born, before daring to pronounce him the "father" of African literature. I might accept if he was called the father of MODERN African literature, which is what more responsible and knowledgeable commentators have described him as. But the babyosisis of this world lack the intellect for such important subtleties.

ROSSIKE: But you need to have exposed yourself to that sea of African literature covering literally THOUSANDS of years before Achebe was born, before daring to pronounce him the "father" of African literature. I might accept of he was called the ather of MODERN African literature, which is what more responsible and knowledgeable commentators describe him as. But the babyosisis of this world lack the intellect for such subtleties.

Whatever Achebe is called, it's for his generation and the one after him.

being tagged "father" of African Literature is essentially meaningless.There are no agreeable criteria and we might as well talk of Father of African drumming,African Sculpting,dancing,singing etc.That should illustrate how meaningless is. In this case it means "first to gain Oyinbo Approval" and that is why it should be discarded. Do we need Oyinbo recognition to validate us??

babyosisi: Wole Soyinka should be careful not to destroy the legacy he has built by involving himself in unsavory affairs.
The first time the Prof disappointed me was when he spoke in support of Patience Jonathan's perm sec appointment,now this.


Chinua Achebe was called the father and grandfather of African literature by others
He did not label himself that
People recognized his immeasurable contribution to African literature and bestowed on him that honor in his lifetime so it is quite petty for WS whom I respect a great to utter such words.
It makes him sound jealous and he should be above such pettiness.
Michael Jackson was called the King of Pop
Elvis was the King of Rock and Roll
Donna Summer was the Queen of Disco While Aretha Franklin is and remains the Queen of soul
That label on Chinua is deserving.


Secondly why speak about Chinua's Book in his death what you couldn't say while he was alive?
I love Soyinka but his words here are beneath a man of his calibre
Maybe old age is setting in
Still respect you sir but you disappoint me here once again

[img]http://img1.nairaland.com/attachments/1113332_image_jpg0d5b1c4c7f720f698946c7f6ab08f687[/img]

I'm very sure you didn't even see that the title was in quotation marks yet you think an educated illiterate like you can stand the literary knowledge of WS.smh

Afam4eva:
Whatever Achebe is called, it's for his generation and the one after him.

No. Whatever he is called must be reasonably accurate, and not prone to ridicule. Father of African Literature is an inappropriate term to use, and you cannot escape by claiming the term refers only to his generation and beyond. It doesn't. If you must, you should call him the father of Modern African literature. It is a very important distinction, and ignoring it suggests low intelligence and historical illiteracy.

aribisala0: being tagged "father" of African Literature is essentially meaningless.There are no agreeable criteria and we might as well talk of Father of African drumming,African Sculpting,dancing,singing etc.That should illustrate how meaningless is. In this case it means "first to gain Oyinbo Approval" and that is why it should be discarded. Do we need Oyinbo recognition to validate us??

This is why I called it 'Mungo Park discovered river Niger' story. Achebe cannot be the father of what existed before him and he was right to have rejected that title.
We don't need any more Mungo park story of how oyinbo discovered a river Africans have been fishing in since the beginning of time!

ROSSIKE: No. Whatever he is called must be reasonably accurate, and not prone to ridicule. Father of African Lterature is an inappropriate term to use, and you cannot escape by claiming the term refers only to his generation and beyond. It doesn't. If you must, you should call him the father of Modern African literature.

Maybe "Father of Modern African literature" would have been more appropriate but let's examine the term "Father"...Fatherwood refers to a figure that inspires others. Tell me one African writer before Achebe that inspires other African writers as much as Achebe. It's not just about being the earliest African writer but how far your works inspire others. African literature officially kicked off in the 19th century.

Afam4eva:
Maybe "Father of Modern African literature" would have been more appropriate but let's examine the term "Father"...Fatherwood refers to a figure that inspires others. Tell me one African writer before Achebe that inspires other African writers as much as Achebe. It's not just about being the earliest African writer but how far your works inspire others. African literature officially kicked off in the 19th century.

African literature "officially kicked off" when? Dude, please stop making a fool of yourself here. This is why Soyinka uses the word illiterates to describe your ilk. To you, the world started with European colonialism in the 19th century.. But you are wrong. Why don't you take the time to read and research the history of your continent before further embarrassing yourself? It's no one's job here to educate you.

ROSSIKE: African literature "officially kicked off" when? Dude, please stop making a fool of yourself here. This is why Soyinka uses the words illiterates to describe your ilk. To you, the world started with European colonialism in the 19th century.. But you are wrong. Wh don't you take the time to read and research the history of your continent before further embarrassing yourself?

You've still not answered my question. Tell me which African writer before Achebe gained global or even National prominence. This is not about European colonialism.

Afam4eva:
You've still not answered my question. Tell me which African writer before Achebe gained global or even National prominence. This is not about European colonialism.

Google Ahmed Baba, born in 1556. He wrote over 40 books before his death in 1627.

babyosisi: Wole Soyinka should be careful not to destroy the legacy he has built by involving himself in unsavory affairs.
The first time the Prof disappointed me was when he spoke in support of Patience Jonathan's perm sec appointment,now this.


Chinua Achebe was called the father and grandfather of African literature by others
He did not label himself that
People recognized his immeasurable contribution to African literature and bestowed on him that honor in his lifetime so it is quite petty for WS whom I respect a great to utter such words.
It makes him sound jealous and he should be above such pettiness.
Michael Jackson was called the King of Pop
Elvis was the King of Rock and Roll
Donna Summer was the Queen of Disco While Aretha Franklin is and remains the Queen of soul
That label on Chinua is deserving.


Secondly why speak about Chinua's Book in his death what you couldn't say while he was alive?
I love Soyinka but his words here are beneath a man of his calibre
Maybe old age is setting in
Still respect you sir but you disappoint me here once again

EOD THREAD CLOSED

ROSSIKE: Google Ahmed Baba, born in 1556.

Why do i have to google him to know him. I know Shakespeare and Charles Dickens. I never said there were no writers before Achebe. I only asked for a writer before Achebe whose works are globally or even nationally of villagely(permit my french)acclaimed. How many writers use Ahmed Baba as a point of reference as much as Achebe?

Aigbofa:

This is why I called it 'Mungo Park discovered river Niger' story. Achebe cannot be the father of what existed before him and he was right to have rejected that title.
We don't need any more Mungo park story of how oyinbo discovered a river Africans have been fishing in since the beginning of time!

Case closed. That's the pure truth.

shymexx: Best excerpt from the interview:



^^^^I need to create a thread called - "Nigerian disease" - by Prof. Wole Soyinka. He couldn't have said it better than that.

I just hope I meet him before he leaves this planet - my hero!!!

Totally, totally agree. This is the pure undiluted truth. I will keep this interview in my files. What a great man.

Afam4eva:
Why do i have to google him to know him. I know Shakespeare and Charles Dickens. I never said there were no writers before Achebe. I only asked for a writer before Achebe whose works are globally or even nationally of villagely(permit my french)acclaimed. How many writers use Ahmed Baba as a point of reference as much as Achebe?

You have to Google him to know him because the colonialist education you received ensured that you were completely cut off from your own history and the achievements of your people. So today, you need to actively search for that history or remain a colonised, lost sheep.

ROSSIKE: You have to Google him to know him because the colonialist education you received ensured that you were completely cut off from your own history. So today, you need to actively search for that history or remain a colonised, lost sheep.

Baba Ahmed's writings did not even cross Sudan and Timbuktu. So, why should he even be considered "Father of African literature"? Did his writing have a behemoth influence on subsequent African writers and in the same level as Achebe?

babyosisi: Wole Soyinka should be careful not to destroy the legacy he has built by involving himself in unsavory affairs.
The first time the Prof disappointed me was when he spoke in support of Patience Jonathan's perm sec appointment,now this.


Chinua Achebe was called the father and grandfather of African literature by others
He did not label himself that
People recognized his immeasurable contribution to African literature and bestowed on him that honor in his lifetime so it is quite petty for WS whom I respect a great to utter such words.
It makes him sound jealous and he should be above such pettiness.
Michael Jackson was called the King of Pop
Elvis was the King of Rock and Roll
Donna Summer was the Queen of Disco While Aretha Franklin is and remains the Queen of soul
That label on Chinua is deserving.


Secondly why speak about Chinua's Book in his death what you couldn't say while he was alive?
I love Soyinka but his words here are beneath a man of his calibre
Maybe old age is setting in
Still respect you sir but you disappoint me here once again

I thank God I am neither Igbo or Yoruba so I can make this statement without being tagged with a tribal brush.

You, my dear, are an imbecilic dolt!
You are one of the ignoramuses WS so aptly described in this interview. What does it matter if 'others' (who WS rightly calls 'misguided' or 'overcome with exuberance')called Achebe the 'father of African Literature'? The man himself never called himself that...nor did any of the major literary icons in Nigeria label him that. So what is this fascination with foisting such a title on him?

babyosisi:
It makes him sound jealous and he should be above such pettiness.

Freudian slip? YOU need to get over your jealousy and pettiness.

babyosisi:
Michael Jackson was called the King of Pop
Elvis was the King of Rock and Roll
Donna Summer was the Queen of Disco While Aretha Franklin is and remains the Queen of soul

Nobody would ever call Elvis the 'Father of Rock and Roll'. Michael Jackson has never been called the 'father of Pop'.

Nice and educative thread...bt tired of this tribal e-war btw yoruba and igbos....hope this end soon

Afam4eva:
Baba Ahmed's writings did not even cross Sudan and Timbuktu. So, why should he even be considered "Father of African literature"? Did his writing have a behemoth influence on subsequent African writers and in the same level as Achebe?

Please write about what you know and stop spewing ignorance. You didn't know a thing about him a few minutes ago, yet now you know where his influence reached and didn't reach. Why don't you take the time to study him, and other African writers and their works before typing further trash? Your ignorance and disnterest in their works is a disgrace.