₦airaland Forum

Sanchez01:
You already missed it. There are different kind of writers as far as literature is concerned and they don't necessarily tilt towards history let alone serve as custodians. Metaphysical writers are classic examples of this. They have no regards for history are show any interest in serving as eyes of time. All they bother with are funny, though interesting subject matters, largely sex. They achieve this through ingenious conceits, incongruous imagery, complexity and subtlety of thought, frequent use of paradox, and often by deliberate harshness or rigidity of expression. John Donne, Andrew Marvel, George Herbert, Henry Vaughn are classical examples of such form of writing.

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



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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanchez01:
At the emboldened, where did you get that nonsense from?

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

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

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

Now. I will show you what i mean.

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

Who is a writer and what's his duty?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These writers served the first calling.

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

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

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

aribisala0:
I guess you are using the word dig in an idiosyncratic way.

Can you name just ONE of his works that you have read.JUST ONE please

I've read lots.

" From Zia with love...a scourge of hyacinths" is one.

Even from the title, there's a hint of a predilection for the verbiose and complexity in semantics.

Must everyone be really up there academically to enjoy his works?
I remember reading, understanding and cherishing Chinua Achebe works right from primary 5 with my infantile mind.

A good writer makes his message and prose style readily accessible to all cadre of readers, so far as you can read the word...and so far as the truth has come to you.

aribisala0:
what is Wole Soyinka's signature work that you have read? You say ALL his works are verbose, is that true of Trials of Brother Jero ?

By the way your above sentence is quite bombastic and verbose it really looks very unnatural.

"I don't get that dig..." Please translate

Simply, i don't get that dig means i don't share the laureate committee judgment in giving him that award.

I've read lots of works by him.
A true artist or writer obeys the first rules of simplicity of purpose and clarity in communication.

So many readers of his works always come away confused, rather than informed or entertained at the page's end.

The marvel at his prowess lies more on,
"How could someone befuddle the mind with so much huge grammar within so short lines?"

I don't get that dig too.

Right from 1986 when he won that stuff, so many of us questioned the judgement at the time because all Soyinkas works were painted in verbose, high falutin words and prose meant to confuse you than unclutter your mind.

Achebe works stood out in their simplicity and direct messages to the issues of the times.

I support Reno on this.