Hector Kunene has rightly been praised by many for his promising work, Through the Tunnel. However I am yet to read even one critical piece or essay on the book, which is a great disservice to the author. As a new author he deserves his work to be evaluated in a critical manner, not just praised in ignorant fashion.
We have always pointed out that no writer, no matter how good, is immune from criticism. Thomas Hardy for example is one of the greatest writers the world has ever seen with his world class novels; yet even when he was at the height of his powers and he published Jude the Obscure the critics in his enlightened society tore the work apart – it was a real ‘onslaught of vituperative criticism’ as Hardy himself described it whilst alive
It is tragic indeed that basically so many people at grassroots level hardly read in our (black African) society, no matter how educated they are; hence we have situations where works full of many mistakes are praised, whilst more sophisticated readers, and especially the scholars and critics, can identify these mistakes very easily. Through the Tunnel is full of such mistakes
Take page 38 for example (containing the poem ‘I will portray’). The mistakes on this page are quite horrific; or how else do we describe a situation where almost TEN spelling mistakes appear on just one page? Of course the most painful error here is the misspelling of ‘portray’ many times on this page; but there are others, like ‘highlights’ instead of ‘highlight’
In case some readers out there start thinking that this is a random mistake, the unfortunate fact is that the legions of mistakes in the book start even before the book formally begins! It is irritating enough that the poet engages in extreme self-praise even on the blurb and the error-strewn ‘Hector Kunene biography’. Indeed the page (page 3) is very embarrassing with so many illogical and syntactical mistakes.
Sentences such as ‘The poem Bloody corpuscles is about alarming the use of the specific words when talking especially to the young ones’ and ‘His poems are mainly in English but he throws in Zulu poems...which are normally shared at occasionally’ are meaningless and will make the purists of the English language flinch with shock.
With logic also often thin on the ground, the perceptive reader is left perplexed on a regular basis as he or she reads this book. A poem like ‘Cheating Standard’ might well have a message, but one suspects that only the poet knows what it is. At the very end of the poem the poet tries to explain what it is all about, but we are still none the wiser, as we are confronted with another confusing, quite meaningless sentence – ‘This friend ended up having a baby with this guy whilst married to his wife few months after this poem was inspired’ (page 23)
What the hell is this? we wonder. Is ‘this friend’ male or female? Surely a male can not have a baby, so we assume it is a woman; but can a woman be married ‘to his wife’ as the rest of the sentence ‘explains’? And how can all this (the betrayal) have happened months AFTER the poem was inspired? Doesn’t the poet mean that his poem was inspired after this betrayal? No matter how you look at it, there is no coherence here.
Indeed it is a common mistake with people who use languages like English formally whilst writing, to want to flaunt their knowledge, and hence they often go off in a tangent, and end up in a confused muddle. Additionally there are problems with similar sounding words which often lead some writers to add to their mistakes.
Alas, such is the case in Through the Tunnel too. There is no point in pointing out dozens of such mistakes in this book, but two shall suffice here. On page 17 the poet wants to write ‘at first sight it was’ but ends up writing ‘site’; again on page 37,(line 6) he confuses ‘live’ with ‘leave’ and ends up writing ‘you live me in a state...’
The desire for the poet to display his ‘flair for words’ often ends in confusion and embarrassment, as we have pointed out. The ‘big words’ hardly go hand in hand with common sense or real poetry. In the poem ‘Paradigm in paradise’ we can only assume that the poet, whilst showing the world that he knows such a ‘big’ word, is amusing himself, but not the intelligent reader. Lines such as ‘perpetual lifestyle sarcastic to the ancestors who fought’ are in no way poetry.
That the poet is confident, very confident, is clear enough from the book; but the problem is when this confidence strays into the arena of arrogance which should not be tolerated. Indeed in more enlightened societies a poem like ‘Gays and games’ (page 32) would land the poet in serious trouble from countless quarters!
One can only shake one's head sadly at this juncture, realising that the hoary statement ‘if you want to hide something from a black man put it in a book’ might well be true. Or how do we explain a poem like ‘Gays and games’ in this modern world? The disdain and arrogance of the poet shines through in lines like ’Gays and games or lesbians and less beings’? Again the poet makes a mistake here, as he clearly wants to write ‘lesser beings’ – but the effect is still the same; a very dangerous, insensitive poem.
Time and again, it has been shown that the best poets, whilst writing in English as a mother tongue, or as a ‘foreign language’ focus on a coherent message, with brilliant imagery, at least. Good poetry is not about big words or trying to sound clever – that is why even in the Free State the likes of Lebohang Thaisi will continue to be respected for their brilliant simplicity and lyricism in their published poetry. One can only hope that Mr Hector Kunene will try to focus less on ‘sounding bombastic and clever’, and more on writing moving poetry that will linger in the mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment