Achebe on Conrad

[Otto Sell]

rj  wrote:
>
> > The women characters in _Things Fall Apart_ are
> > named
> >> and individualised just as the men are; that women were regarded as
> >> subservient in Ibo culture is not a reflection of Achebe's chauvinism.
> >>
> >

And that blacks weren't seen as humans in 19th-century Europe thus isn't
necessarily a reflection of Conrad's "racism" as well (following your
argument). "TFA" was written fifty years after "HoD" with two world wars and
the Holocaust inbetween.

I said:
> > Is it? He must allow to take the same measuring scale on his own
literature
> > as he puts on the books of others.
>
You said:
> There is an enormous difference between the depictions of the female
> characters in _Things Fall Apart_ and the depiction of Africans in _Heart
of
> Darkness_. But what I was more concerned by was your attempt to discredit
> (silence) Achebe's criticism of Conrad by seeking to brand Achebe's own
> fiction as revealing discriminatory attitudes. For a start, I don't think
> that that's correct anyway. But it's certainly an entirely separate issue
> and, what's more, it *isn't* really the "same measuring scale" at all.
>

Why? discrimination is discrimination in the end. As my Belgian example Jef
Geeraerts ("Gangrene 1 - Black Venus") "proves" the slave-holders
necessarily were "women-holders" at the same time.
When someone criticizes another one's books (with such a scathing verdict as
Achebe did on Conrad) of course I take a close look at what he has written
himself. So where's Achebe's criticism of Ibo-society in his book for
treating women badly? If there's none I *must* believe that he still shares
the opinion that women are inferior to men, only following his own arguments
on Conrad. The fact that women are presented even more positive than Okonwko
(which is not very difficult at all) in "TFA" could be seen as a disguise of
women discrimination in pre-colonialized Africa.

I said:
> > "handling of women affairs" - remember, I'm no native speaker and my
> > intention wasn't discriminatory at all.
>

You said:
> Even allowing for that there is still a problem with the notion that the
> affairs of women are somehow separate, or should ( ... could ... might) be
> handled separately, to relationships between men and women. I didn't and
> don't think your intention was discriminatory.
>

Do you think that the fact that there are "women studies" or seminars at our
universities where men are excluded is discriminating women? No, it's an
"effect," a reaction to the discrimination, an attempt to overcome it.

I said:
> > I consider Achebe's harsh critic as a bit presumptuous and unfair in
> > general. But it's not irrelevant.
>

You said:
> I don't think it is presumptuous at all. I agree that some of his rhetoric
> is extreme, however, in the light of the prevailing consensus regarding
> _HoD_ in the canon I think that it was probably necessary for him to be
> strident and provocative so that his voice would be heard.
>

Ok, to be heard it's of course ok but did he row back a little after getting
the public interest he wanted?
I still see his criticism as very undifferentiated and thus unfair.

I said:
> > When Marlow says  that London has been "one of the dark places" he
surely
> > considers those old Brits who fought against the Romans as humans and
> > individuals or not. So I think it's only fair to believe that at least
the
> > author saw the Africans.
>

You said:
> I'm less and less convinced that this is enough.
>
> best
>

That's it - I am and I praise Conrad for taking a first little step: Conrad
personally was less racist than 99% of his contemporaries but still a child
of his time (as I said before).
HoD is a novel that made people aware of racism, of the cruelties of
colonialism and the myths that were used by the imperialists, not a racist
novel as Achebe (whose novel of course is no anti-woman novel in my opinion)
claims.
It's easy to put Conrad down nowadays from our late-20th-century view, but
this doesn't necessarily judges him right, neither concerning his "politics"
or "ethics" nor his art.

Or does anybody wants to put the blame on Conrad for this:

"you can say "Okonkwo" from Liberia to Kenya and down to Swaziland, and
people with a high school education or more will recognize the proud,
fierce, tragic hero of Things Fall Apart. But in the West, Chinua Achebe is
barely known outside African studies courses."
http://past.thenation.com/cgi-bin/framizer.cgi?url=http://past.thenation.com
/issue/000710/0710north.shtml

This goes more or less for the name of Thomas Pynchon (and many other
important writers) too who is barely known outside English studies over
here: leaves the question (don't beat me, it's shallow I admit in advance!):
is Achebe jealous for not being reprinted as often as Conrad?
Again, I don't consider Conrad as the "better" writer and personally I like
"TFA" even more than "HoD" (this weekends readings reassured me of that),
but they're both great novels and pieces of art, both to be read in the
context of anti-colonialism. Both books were "eye-openers" for me.
My intention is more to defend Conrad than to criticize Achebe.

regards
Otto
"As our people say, a man who pays respect to the great paves the way for
his own greatness."
(TFA, p. 23, Fawcett US-edition)