Achebe on Conrad

[Otto Sell]

> >From: "Otto Sell" <o.sell at telda.net>
> >
> >
> > 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).
>
> Well, no, this isn't right. The female characters in _TFA_ are "named and
> individualised just as the males are"; Africans are *not* named and
> individualised in _HoD_ as the Europeans are. They are just "niggers", or
> labelled by the subservient roles they perform.
>

But isn't he just presenting how the "reality" was perceived by the
Europeans in those days? Apart from being a great work of art "HoD" is a
social document like "TFA".

> But this is not the point. Proving Achebe is a chauvinist has no bearing
on
> whether or not Conrad was "racist". The two issues are entirely separate;
> trying to disprove the latter assertion by making the former counter-claim
> is illogical.
>
> It's not really such a big deal, but it's still an important point to make
I
> think.
>

I've never tried to prove that Achebe is a chauvinist. It was just an
example how easily these things can be done.

> snip
>
> > 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.
>
> You do realise that by the logic of your current argument (proving
Achebe's
> chauvinism) you are actually supporting Achebe's case that Conrad *is* a
> racist, which is what you were arguing against in the first place.
>

Yes, and you do remember that I first said that necessarily Conrad is
*racist* to a certain point, but I labeled Achebe's critic as unfair because
Conrad was a step ahead of his contemporaries, but of course some steps
behind of our or Achebe's "perception" of the world. His harsh verdict shows
his emotional entanglement which I logically don't share. He judges Conrad
as if the novel had been written 1970.

> snip
>
> > 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.
>
> There is a difference between an academic discipline called 'Women's
> Studies' and the notion that any text is "handling women's affairs"
> separately to the way it handles the "affairs" between men and women in
the
> society. Unless you're expecting Achebe to speak as an advocate of lesbian
> separatism that is! (I'm joking.)
>
> > 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 think your dismissal of Achebe's essay is over-hasty. I think the
> criticisms are well-founded and thoroughly supported with citations and
apt
> interpretations of Conrad's text. I think he has been extremely "fair",
and
> deliberately tried to be "fair".
>

To explain that "HoD" is no work of art is fair?

> >
> > 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.
>
> I've agreed all along with you on this point, and you can say exactly the

> same sorts of things about Kipling. Achebe is not advocating that _HoD_ be
> thrown away. He is saying that the "racist" mentality it discloses should
be
> acknowledged (even though it is *also* a liberal, "progressive",
> anti-colonialist mentality).
>

Of course it should, but again, this does not take away the fact that "HoD"
remains a great work of art, which Achebe definitely denies in the end when
he says that "HoD" cannot be called a great work of 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?
>
> No, I don't think this is at all "fair".
>
> > 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.
>
> I think that they can and should be read together, and in that context.
But
> I think that Achebe's essay on _HoD_ should also be read.
>

Yes, absolutely - discussed and rejected in his final conclusion that "HoD"
cannot be called a great work of art!

> > Both books were "eye-openers" for me.
> > My intention is more to defend Conrad than to criticize Achebe.
>
> Except that in order to defend Conrad you have criticised Achebe. And I
> think that it would be easy to argue that in order to "defend" Africa and
> Africans it was important for Achebe to criticise Conrad. Despite the
> rhetoric I think that Achebe's article evinces considerable respect for
> Conrad's art.
>
> best
>

Despite the last sentence I can only agree. It's ok to talk about the
inevitable, historical racism in "HoD" but it's a different thing to call it
a racist novel while in fact the novel criticizes colonialism as inhuman,
even if from a "wrong" point of view, seen from our perspective. To defend
Conrad I have criticized Achebe for criticizing Conrad too hard. That
doesn't take away any quota of my admiration for Achebe, my respect for
being a great writer. But he's talking about Conrad's novel and not Conrad
about his.

Again, he should've taken a look at his own novel first:
"As our people say, a man who pays respect to the great paves the way for
his own greatness."

regards

Otto

PS  we must talk about Billy Budd one day