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 Markey 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 delicately or 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.

davidofadventure@gmail.com