skarlett:

I know who literary critics are and to me they're just wasting their time. The time you'll use to analyse other people's work should be spent creating yours, that's all I'm saying.

RedboneSmith:
BluntBoy and Maestroferddi,

Interesting conversation.

Maestroferddi, Adichie is most likely never going to win the Nobel. Yes, she is easily the most recognised voice in Nigerian (maybe even African) literature, right now, but I am sorry her literary power doesn't exactly stand out. Her stature as a feminist icon is largely what keeps her in the limelight, not necessarily her literary prowess; I have read other African writers of Adichie's generation that I consider literarily better than her. And I say this as an Adichie fan.

BluntBoy, I disagree that stylistic 'depth' is what the Nobel committee is looking for. You do not have to write 'difficult' prose like Soyinka to win a Nobel. Ernest Hemingway won it with very, very simple straight forward prose. Bob Dylan won it with simple straightforward ballads. To be honest, Soyinka's prose work like The Interpreters come off as unnecessarily obscure and even pretentious. I prefer his plays; and it is his plays that won him the Nobel.

There is a certain truth that politics plays a big role in who gets the Nobel and who doesn't. Leo Tolstoy and James Joyce were the giants of literature in their own time, as in they stood head and shoulders over every other person writing in their times; and the Nobel Committee snubbed both of them, because their politics and worldview were unpopular in their time. There are literary critics (and I am not talking about Igbo or Nigerian critics) who believe Achebe was snubbed because of his attack on Western Colonial Literature and its representation of the African. Especially his long essay attacking Joseph Conrad's classic novel, "The Heart of Darkness". That essay infuriated a lot of people in the West. Achebe himself spoke about one angry white literary don who confronted him over that essay. Achebe's name appears on many lists of the greatest artists of the 20th century. That he was apparently never considered for the Nobel is at least suspicious.

But back to Adichie; Nay, I don't think she has written herself to Nobel status, and I don't think she ever will.

RedboneSmith:
BluntBoy and Maestroferddi,

Interesting conversation.

Maestroferddi, Adichie is most likely never going to win the Nobel. Yes, she is easily the most recognised voice in Nigerian (maybe even African) literature, right now, but I am sorry her literary power doesn't exactly stand out. Her stature as a feminist icon is largely what keeps her in the limelight, not necessarily her literary prowess; I have read other African writers of Adichie's generation that I consider literarily better than her. And I say this as an Adichie fan.

BluntBoy, I disagree that stylistic 'depth' is what the Nobel committee is looking for. You do not have to write 'difficult' prose like Soyinka to win a Nobel. Ernest Hemingway won it with very, very simple straight forward prose. Bob Dylan won it with simple straightforward ballads. To be honest, Soyinka's prose work like The Interpreters come off as unnecessarily obscure and even pretentious. I prefer his plays; and it is his plays that won him the Nobel.

There is a certain truth that politics plays a big role in who gets the Nobel and who doesn't. Leo Tolstoy and James Joyce were the giants of literature in their own time, as in they stood head and shoulders over every other person writing in their times; and the Nobel Committee snubbed both of them, because their politics and worldview were unpopular in their time. There are literary critics (and I am not talking about Igbo or Nigerian critics) who believe Achebe was snubbed because of his attack on Western Colonial Literature and its representation of the African. Especially his long essay attacking Joseph Conrad's classic novel, "The Heart of Darkness". That essay infuriated a lot of people in the West. Achebe himself spoke about one angry white literary don who confronted him over that essay. Achebe's name appears on many lists of the greatest artists of the 20th century. That he was apparently never considered for the Nobel is at least suspicious.

But back to Adichie; Nay, I don't think she has written herself to Nobel status, and I don't think she ever will.

BluntBoy:


So, because Adichie is Igbo, I should not give bad reviews merely to avoid being labeled a tribalist?

So, we can't have an intellectual discussion without someone seeing tribalism somewhere in the argument? And you call yourself a literary critic. If you indeed are a literary critic, have you never given a bad review before?

This issue has nothing to do with tribalism. Adichie is a wonderful writer but not a bet for the Nobel Prize. Her novels are at best popular fiction, something which the Nobel Committee don't consider with much seriousness. It is the reason why popular writers hardly win it. That was why I asked for how many Nobel Prize winners you have read.

If you have read Toni Morrison or Nadine Gordimer, place their books side by side with Adichie and you would see why Adichie can never even smell the Nobel.

It takes a lot of power and sustained voice to win the Nobel. You can't read Morrison the way you read Adichie just as you can't read Soyinka the way you read Achebe. There are clear differences. Morrison and Soyinka are in a deeper level than Adichie and Achebe. You are likely to drop their books after a few lines because of the deep, highly personal writings which the Nobel believes to be real literature.

Go and read Soyinka's The Interpreters and Achebe's No Longer At Ease. These books have the same theme of alienation. While Achebe's writing is straightforward (nothing bad about that but the Nobel committee likes something deeper and highly philosophical), Soyinka's writings are deeper, mythical and powerful. Using the myth of Ogun, Soyinka perfectly conveyed the theme of alienation deeply while Achebe did so on the surface like every popular fiction.

You can't win the Nobel Prize with books like Half of a Yellow Sun or the unnecessarily bulky Americanah. Moreover, you can't win the Nobel Prize if you don't write constantly (especially if you are African). How could Achebe have won with only 4 major novels in the category that had Soyinka (who had over 15 plays), Naguib Mahfouz (who was already a force to reckon with in Egypt and the Arab world) and the exquisite Nadine Gordimer?

Now, look at what is happening to Adichie too. She has not published any major work since May, 2013. And people insist her first two novels are far better than the third. How can you win the Nobel when you are not even consistent? Exact same thing happened to Achebe. Prior to the 1986 Nobel Prize, Achebe had only published 4 novels and had last published in 1966 and yet people expect him to be picked over Soyinka who continued to publish plays after plays and even published a powerful autobiography "Ake" in 1986.

My argument has nothing to do with tribalism. Some of my favorite African novelists are Igbos. I love Chukwuemeka Ike and Cyprian Ekwensi and one of my favorite poets is Christopher Okigbo.

RedboneSmith:
BluntBoy and Maestroferddi,

Interesting conversation.

Maestroferddi, Adichie is most likely never going to win the Nobel. Yes, she is easily the most recognised voice in Nigerian (maybe even African) literature, right now, but I am sorry her literary power doesn't exactly stand out. Her stature as a feminist icon is largely what keeps her in the limelight, not necessarily her literary prowess; I have read other African writers of Adichie's generation that I consider literarily better than her. And I say this as an Adichie fan.

BluntBoy, I disagree that stylistic 'depth' is what the Nobel committee is looking for. You do not have to write 'difficult' prose like Soyinka to win a Nobel. Ernest Hemingway won it with very, very simple straight forward prose. Bob Dylan won it with simple straightforward ballads. To be honest, Soyinka's prose work like The Interpreters come off as unnecessarily obscure and even pretentious. I prefer his plays; and it is his plays that won him the Nobel.

There is a certain truth that politics plays a big role in who gets the Nobel and who doesn't. Leo Tolstoy and James Joyce were the giants of literature in their own time, as in they stood head and shoulders over every other person writing in their times; and the Nobel Committee snubbed both of them, because their politics and worldview were unpopular in their time. There are literary critics (and I am not talking about Igbo or Nigerian critics) who believe Achebe was snubbed because of his attack on Western Colonial Literature and its representation of the African. Especially his long essay attacking Joseph Conrad's classic novel, "The Heart of Darkness". That essay infuriated a lot of people in the West. Achebe himself spoke about one angry white literary don who confronted him over that essay. Achebe's name appears on many lists of the greatest artists of the 20th century. That he was apparently never considered for the Nobel is at least suspicious.

But back to Adichie; Nay, I don't think she has written herself to Nobel status, and I don't think she ever will.

maestroferddi:
Oga, you are, at least, a closet tribalist.

I won't waste my time reacting to the sundry inaccuracies and self-serving stuff you were spewing above.

I still maintain that you are fixated on something else how does one explain your rather irrational predilection to subjectivity.

You cherry-picked an minor Achebe work and tried rather disingenuously to juxtapose it against a major Soyinka work.

Why not broach Achebe's magnus opus, Things Fall Apart, severally deemed by those who should know as among the 100 greatest books of all time?

Saying something about Soyinka, most literary minds deem his style grotesque, nihilistic, and even banal.

I would rather you broaden your worldview. It will stand you on a better stead going forward...

BluntBoy:


Sir, don't be carried away by the simplicity of Hemingway.

Another thing with Hemingway is that he was a sort of a special breed and not very popular with editors because of his boring style of writing.

And you mistake obscurity with depth. Soyinka is obscure but that is not my argument. His writing is highly philosophical and deeply mythical hence the boredom they project and that is exactly what the Nobel committee view as serious literature. This boredom is also present in Papa Hemingway's works. Papa could use hundred pages describing activities in a pub and he could write many chapters without using adjectives. You can't read Hemingway as popular fiction.

However, I must commend your writeup. Thank you.

maestroferddi:
Stop embarrassing your self guy.

We all can read and interpret literature.

Stop flying a Soyinka kite just because he is your fellow Yorubaman.

You are about the first I have encountered asserting that Achebe lacks depth.

May I tell you that that assertion is perfectly ridiculous...

BluntBoy:


For your information, many critics (including Achebe) do not see Things Fall Apart as his finest work. Achebe himself picked Arrow of God and that is the novel I feel is his best.

I bet you don't know the meaning of grotesque, nihilistic and banal?

maestroferddi:
Can you provide evidence where Achebe chose Arrows of God ahead of Things Fall Apart?

I sure well do know what the meaning of what I stated...

BluntBoy:


Go and get a copy of Arrow of God and read the Preface that Achebe wrote by himself.

Literary critic my foot!!! (SMH).

BluntBoy:


And to add, Achebe was not denied based on that. Soyinka attacked and attacks the West more than Achebe. And so does Morrison and yet they won the Nobel Prize. The argument about Achebe's snub has never been adequate.

In many of Soyinka's works, there is always a knack to throw jibes at the West. He did so in the Telephone Conversation (one of his earliest poems) and subtly in Lion and the Jewel.

BluntBoy:


And to add, Achebe was not denied based on that. Soyinka attacked and attacks the West more than Achebe. And so does Morrison and yet they won the Nobel Prize. The argument about Achebe's snub has never been adequate.

In many of Soyinka's works, there is always a knack to throw jibes at the West. He did so in the Telephone Conversation (one of his earliest poems) and subtly in Lion and the Jewel.

BluntBoy:


Oga, you are beginning to sound like a ruffian. A literary critic would have put me away with mastery of literature but since we have been having this argument, you have not even shown the qualities.

You keep on seeing Soyinka when I have constantly mentioned others like Morrison. You have decided to let your tribalism show.

First of all, not everyone can interpret literature. And that is enough proof that you are not a literary critic.

I am not the first to mention Achebe's lack of depth. If you were a book lover, you would have read Abubakar Adam Ibrahim's submissions.

And don't make it seem like I am putting down Achebe. He was a wonderful writer but not enough depth to win a Nobel Prize.

BluntBoy:


Oga, you are beginning to sound like a ruffian. A literary critic would have put me away with mastery of literature but since we have been having this argument, you have not even shown the qualities.

You keep on seeing Soyinka when I have constantly mentioned others like Morrison. You have decided to let your tribalism show.

First of all, not everyone can interpret literature. And that is enough proof that you are not a literary critic.

I am not the first to mention Achebe's lack of depth. If you were a book lover, you would have read Abubakar Adam Ibrahim's submissions.

And don't make it seem like I am putting down Achebe. He was a wonderful writer but not enough depth to win a Nobel Prize.

RedboneSmith:


You sure about the bolded, though? Soyinka didn't write anything that drew the ire of the Western literary establishment the way Achebe's "An Image of Africa" did. At least, not pre-1986.

maestroferddi:
Dont be dumb.

The "we" was used as a relative pronoun referring to literary critics who know their onions.

Stop wasting my time...

RedboneSmith:


You sure about the bolded, though? Soyinka didn't write anything that drew the ire of the Western literary establishment the way Achebe's "An Image of Africa" did. At least, not pre-1986.

maestroferddi:
So you are taking this bloke seriously?

Dont be caught together people like him who are experts at revisionism...

BluntBoy:


Please, shut up, you have nothing of substance to bring to the table.

Have been a literary critic for some decades.

The above highlighted statement was made by you. You claimed to be a literary critic with experience (for decades).

maestroferddi:
I am afraid you are beginning to go off at a tangent...

We are apparently not on the same page nay same wavelength here...

I see... you want me to regale myself in the name-dropping you are here in a funny bid to assuage some bizarre fantasy, abi?

Ogbeni, I am not beholden to elicit your acclamation...It holds portends no value to me.

BluntBoy:


You have done nothing other than hide behind big words.

You couldn't even name a book written by a Nobel Prize winner. You have not even shown any substance to betray the qualities of a book lover.

When you started, you were using plain English but when your inadequacy was exposed, you resorted to using big words.

BluntBoy:


Oga Critic, if you had any substance, this argument would be devoid of insults. You are not the first I would have an argument with concerning the Nobel Prize. Somebody mentioned you and I and mentioned literary giants to buttress his points but you, it appears you only know Adichie, Achebe and Soyinka. How can someone with such limited knowledge debate on matters of literature?

Please, we have had literary critics of repute like TS Eliot. Don't come and turn that profession into pure water just like your ilk have bastardized the titles "Doctor" and "Engineer".

A true literary critic will not make a line of argument without reeling names and exhibiting an outstanding grasp of an impressive list of giants in the field.

maestroferddi:
Oga stop the pettiness, I refuse to sing from your hymn book by reeling out books.

I have read thousands of books in practically all genres of literature.

If you cannot deduce my depth from the way I have been articulating viewpoints here, then that should project your paucity to a sharp focus.

BTW, literary appreciation predate The Nobel Prize in Literature, which in any case is a relatively recent construct...

maestroferddi:
Are we debating literary critics here or your impetuous assertion that Chimamanda cannot win The Nobel Prize in Literature because, according to you, she writes watery/superficial/Onitsha market literature?

May I educate you that all Chimamanda needs to do is develop her literary niche and, if she persists, the world will fall in line in the long run.

Geniuses don't ape the norm, the make themselves the norm.

BTW, it smacks of unreasonableness to brand Adichie's works as run-of-the-mill while they keep winning tons of awards all over the world.

The Americannah you were poo-pooing won the American Literary Critics Award.

It goes, therefore, without saying that there must be something good she is doing.
One or two awards might be circumstantial, but serial awards point at something.

In any case, you should expect me to return fire on insults. Go through your rejoinders and see the invectives you were administering like kilode...

BluntBoy:


What viewpoint have you actually articulated.

You are of the view that Achebe was snubbed and yet couldn't even produce the year(s) that he was snubbed.

I educated you about how the Prize works just to make you understand that no one can be sure that Achebe ever even got close. My points can be refuted with a simple surfing of the Nobel Prize official website. I know so much about the Prize because every year, I gun for the distinguished professor Ngugi wa Thiong'O to win it. I don't just listen to beer parlor gossips and thing them sufficient enough to debate on Nairaland.

Everything I said here can be refuted. The obscurity of the Nobel Prize nominees for 50 years after a Prize has been awarded can be confirmed on the official website of the Nobel Prize. Chinua Achebe's preference for Arrow of God over Things Fall Apart can be found in his brief preface to Arrow of God.

But you, no one can confirm that Achebe was denied a Nobel Prize because of politics.

maestroferddi:
At least someone has taken the time here to disabuse you of crass ignorance as per the political angle to the award of the prize.

I deem whatever you are trying to say, heretofore, as a pesky piece of blind argument.

BluntBoy:


Bro, I picked on you specifically for saying that Achebe was snubbed. That is the foundation for this argument.

I am not worried about insults. All I am saying is an intellectual discussion is supposed to be devoid of insults but because you came here with beer parlor gossips, you resorted to big words to cover up your inadequacy.

There is no shame in keeping mute instead of going on and on on a matter that you obviously don't have much knowledge about.

BluntBoy:


Disabused? I have replied him. At least, he showed substance and for someone like that, I would enjoy an argument.

Achebe's case cannot be proven to be political. I have asked him a question and he is yet to answer. Perhaps, you can help.

Is it the same West that have continually hyped Things Fall Apart that is also responsible for snubbing Achebe? Or is the West hyping Things Fall Apart different from the West that denied him the Nobel Prize?

maestroferddi:
You are getting quixotic here.

Which ones are big words?

Do I detect some hint of the actual inadequacy?

We are discussing literature here...I shouldn't be held culpable for your paucity/overdaft of vocabulary...

BTW, You make for a sham soyinka-ite by wailing on choice of words when your supposed hero made a name on literary complication.